Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Community Charge (Private Estates)

Mr. Roger Gale: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 165 residents of Herne Bay, being almost the entire membership of the Studd Hill property owners association. Studd Hill is a small, informal retirement estate. My petitioners say
that those living on the Herne Bay Studd Hill private estate, previously in receipt of rate reduction in respect of services not provided by the local authorities are, as a result of the terms of the Local Government Act and the introduction of the community charge, now denied that reduction and therefore required to pay for services that they do not receive.
My petitioners ask that the Government amend the section of the
Local Government Act that is relevant to require local authorities to rebate the community charge in respect of services enjoyed by other charge payers but not available to residents living on private estates".
I believe that the petition reflects a genuine grievance, and it has my fullest support.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is extremely important, particularly today, when we are considering no fewer than 46 private Members' Bills. It concerns the question of the tradition of objecting to Bills that seek to achieve their passage, as it were, on the nod.
That has long been a tradition in this place. Private Members' Bills are vulnerable animals in legislative terms and, because of the pressure of time, it is inevitable that, on the last day, a large number of measures will be down, some seeking to obtain Second Readings and so on on the nod.
Because of the pressures on Fridays in constituencies, it has sometimes happened that hon. Members with genuine objections or reservations about legislation, and who prefer to see those matters debated properly rather than passing on the nod, get a colleague here to object on their behalf. It has long been the tradition for that to happen.
Recently, a sinister development has occurred, in that hon. Members promoting those Bills have sought to name the individuals concerned who are raising the objections, with the express purpose of identifying publicly, for those outside who are interested in the lobby, that those were the individuals concerned.
That development has had sinister results. For example, when objections were recently raised to a Bill, a twisted minority outside—I can only describe them as that—part

of a lobby, sent threatening and abusive letters to hon. Members, and even issued death threats. That is not the way in which democracy should be conducted.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the principle whether you should call hon. Members who are promoting Bills, who see their Bills objected to and who seek to name the individuals concerned. It is not good practice, and I wonder what you, as guardian of our affairs, can do to defend us from that twisted and bitter minority who seek to disrupt our democratic procedures.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, like hon. Members in all parts of the House, will deplore the activities of people outside who issue threats of the type described by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). But you will confirm that it has long been a tradition of the House that what we do in the Chamber goes on the record. When we go through the Lobby to vote, our names are recorded. To my knowledge, certainly since 1974, it has been normal practice when hon. Members shout "Object" for other hon. Members to seek to identify those who are objecting so that the action that they are taking in the House may be made clear to their constituents.
While you will deprecate any threats that may have been made against hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will not stop the practice of hon. Members trying to identify those hon. Members who block Bills. Although they have every right to object to measures, they should be prepared to accept the public responsibility for doing so.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this will not delay today's proceedings.

Mr. Michael Stern: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. You, Mr. Speaker, will be aware that in the city that I represent there has been a recent outbreak of violence against ordinary people simply because they have fallen foul of a twisted minority who claim to be in favour of animal rights. The threats to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred are in exactly that category. While I totally accept the democratic point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I hope that, through you, Mr. Speaker, the House can achieve its continuing objective of fair debate that is not conducted under a possible sentence.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). If the sinister development to which he referred continues and grows, it will make hon. Members frightened to come to the Chamber and object on Fridays.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I support the Protection of Badger Setts Bill and would like it to be passed into law. An article appeared in the News of the World last Sunday suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who objected to the Bill on its last appearance in the House, was responsible for it not becoming law. As you, Mr. Speaker, and all of us know, that is absolute nonsense. If it does not become law it will not be because, quite


properly and reasonably, someone objected to it, but because its promoters failed to secure sufficient parliamentary time. If we are to go ahead with the normal procedures for private Members' Bills, it is important that they should be reported properly. Any hon. Member who objects to a Bill should not be pilloried as my right hon. Friend was because that is dishonest.

Sir Charles Morrison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a difficult problem here, not necessarily because of the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the identification of a Member who objects, but because outside the House there is, not surprisingly, a lack of knowledge about the way in which the procedure of the House works. As everyone inside the House last Friday would have known, an objection is not necessarily an objection to the Bill in principle.
The objection made to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill last Friday was made purely and simply because the objector wished further amendments to be made to the Bill. The only opportunity to do that was to object to the Bill so that there would be a further opportunity, hopefully today, for discussing the amendments. The lady who wrote the article in the News of the World clearly thought that such an objection was an objection in principle, but that was not so. That misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure could mean serious consequences for those who object to Bills.

Mr. Speaker: It is useful, I think, for members of the public who now witness our proceedings on television to be given the explanations that we have heard in this morning's points of order. The Select Committee on Procedure reported on this matter three years ago, on 5 May 1987, in its second report. The Committee set out the arguments for and against identifying Members who object to Bills being read a Second time without debate and unanimously recommended no change to present procedure. Therefore, such a change could certainly not be introduced without a formal decision on the part of the House—I say that to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) who raised that point. It may well be that hon. Members will ask the Select Committee on Procedure to look at the matter again to see if the decision should be reviewed.
As one who was responsible, in a previous incarnation, for looking after Bills on Friday, may I say that what the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) said was true. It is not good practice for legislation to go through the House without proper debate. We frequently find—I think that the House will agree—that when that happens, amendments need to be made to the Bills and there is little time in our parliamentary programme to achieve that. There is a good reason for objecting to Bills that have not had a full and proper debate in the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a totally separate matter. A Bill has appeared on the Orders of the Day and

Notices of Motions for today, until today, but mysteriously it no longer appears. I have the great honour and privilege to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary to, among others, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who is present today. The hon. Member who drew No. 1 in the ballot—the most coveted prize in the House—sought to introduce a Bill relating to consumer guarantees. With the Minister I attended every one of the Bill's sittings on the Floor of the House, in Committee and on Report. It was down for debate today at position No. 4 on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend the Minister, his advisors, officials and I spent a considerable amount of Government, ministerial and official time preparing ourselves so that we could ensure that the House had the opportunity of considering the vast number of Lords amendments tabled by the Bill's promoter the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones)—

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Brown: My point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is this: is it in order for an hon. Member who draws position No. 1 in the ballot, when the Bill has gone through all its stages in the House, suddenly and without notice to the Minister or the House, to withdraw his Bill on the day that Lords amendments are to be considered?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is absolutely in order for him to do that. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, 5 July, he will see that the Consumer Guarantees Bill has been set down to be considered on Friday 20 July. Therefore, what has happened is perfectly in order.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it takes time from today's Bills, which I think hon. Members are anxious to debate.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that, but this is an important matter—for two reasons. First, I have come here specifically today because I have been lobbied by my constituents who wish the Bill to be passed. It is right that the Bill appears on the Orders of the Day for 20 July, but the reality is that today it had a chance of being debated and passed into law, but on 20 July it has not.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Member in charge of the Bill. He decides; it is his responsibility.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that, but the point of order is that it is not only a gross discourtesy to the House and the Minister, but to you, Mr. Speaker, because the Bill was put down for today, could have been debated but has effectively been killed. That has wasted everybody's time and is a gross discourtesy. I am appalled by it.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Member concerned, but in putting down his Bill for a later date he has possibly given another hon. Member whose Bill was lower in the ballot the opportunity of seeing his Bill put on the statute book.

Orders of the Day — Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Schedule 1

SECTIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTIONS 14 AND 15 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 39, leave out "and (3)" and insert ", (3) and (4A)"

Mr. Martin. Brandon-Bravo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to be turning to the House with my Bill for its concluding stage today. It is a little more than five months since the House approved the Bill's principles when it granted it a Second Reading. I hope that I shall be permitted to detain hon. Members a little longer than I was able to do on that previous, brief occasion. Having thanked colleagues and other hon. Members previously for their help with this measure, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, who so kindly took up the measure and steered it expertly through another place.
The amendments deal with unfinished business which we did not have time to complete during the earlier stages of the Bill. They can be debated as single group because they are consequential upon one another and result from the undertakings that we gave in this place to interested parties: the Ramblers Association, the British Horse Society and others. Naturally they were concerned about the impact that the Bill might have, unamended, on walkers, riders and other non-motorised traffic.
The House will recall the misunderstanding on Report, on 27 April, and the limited time that we had for Third Reading, on 4 May. That meant that we were unable to deliver our promises before the Bill went to their Lordships' House. The House accepted that we would table suitable amendments to meet the criticism and concern. The other place was clearly satisfied with our proposals, and had seen and accepted the correspondence with interested organisations, which are also satisfied with what we have proposed and with what their Lordships have done.
I hope that the amendments will be accepted by the House, since they satisfy the promises that we made, although I am more than happy to provide a little detail so that colleagues on both sides of the House may feel satisfied.
All the amendments refer to the schedules. The first five refer to schedule 1, paragraph 15. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 insert a new paragraph, (4A), which makes effective provision for the shorter order time of six months, which we accepted was reasonable in the circumstances. We have tried to solve that problem while preserving the main

thrust of the Bill which was to create an 18-month temporary traffic order. Notices are of much shorter duration.
Amendment No. 3 describes when such different provision will apply and meets concerns that I outlined earlier and on Report. Amendment No. 4 means that the 18-month order will not apply when the temporary prohibition or restricton is made for reasons mentioned in paragraph 14 (1)(a) and that it will take longer.
Amendment No. 5 defines the process by which the Secretary of State can extend an 18-month order. Amendment No. 6 inserts two new paragraphs, (4A) and (4B), to respond to the two new order times of six and 18 months, and to how and in what circumstances the six months order can be extended. The amendment also clarifies what must happen if the Secretary of State refuses an extension.
Amendment No. 7 recognises the two new paragraphs by inserting them in paragraph 6 of the main schedule. Amendment No. 8 seeks to define a footpath, cycle track and byway. I am pleased that we have tried to ensure that the words will have the same meaning north of the border.
The law outside Greater London imposes a three-month limit only on temporary traffic orders, and the Secretary of State has the power to consent to longer periods on request. The major objective of the Bill was to relax that requirement and to create an 18-month order.
The proposed period in the Bill was understood to be consistent with the extensions of the time limit that was acceptable to the Secretary of State in the past. It matched the 18-month period allowed for experimental orders under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and it seems to represent a reasonable step towards deregulation as it removes the need for many orders to be subjected to the unnecessary bureaucratic process of approval. Consent requirements have been progressively relaxed since the early days, when a Minister for Transport approved all traffic regulation orders. So, the time is ripe for a modest further move away from central decision-making.
The proposal in the Bill is among a number of ideas on which the Department of Transport consulted widely in 1987, following the report of the traffic and parking working group, which involved representatives of local authorities; and the proposal received majority support from consultees.
The Bill caused the Ramblers Association and other groups to make fresh representations on the issue, which were well received; we were sympathetic to their concerns. It is fair to say that they had always been a little cautious about the relaxation proposals and they felt that a shorter period would be appropriate for temporary orders affecting paths, bridleways, cycle tracks and bridleways that are open to all traffic. I understand and share their view.
Temporary orders can be used only to restrict or prohibit traffic. For the purpose of the 1984 Act, traffic includes pedestrians and any
person driving, riding or leading a horse or other animal of draught or burden.
The result is that a temporary traffic order can be used temporarily to restrict the passage of all traffic, including walkers and riders—hence the concern that was expressed. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Denton and


Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is in his place, as he particularly wished to raise these matters early in proceedings on the Bill.
The powers can be used only for the purposes set out in the Bill—because of works or proposed works on or near a road, or because of the likelihood of danger to the public or of serious damage to the road. The Bill makes no significant change to the present law in this respect, but it is clearly right that the authorities should be able to restrict or prohibit all traffic on the grounds of public safety, until the problem—a temporary danger caused perhaps by subsidence from quarrying, an unsafe building or fallen trees—can be dealt with.
I have spent a little time giving the background to the Bill in some detail to explain the need for the Lords amendments. I have accepted, as the Government have accepted, that the restoration of footpaths and bridleways ought generally to be less problematical, and to take less time, than the restoration of vehicular use where that has had to be restricted or temporarily suspended for more substantial remedial work.
Diversions are more likely to be disruptive for users on foot or on horseback than for motorised traffic, which may be back on its intended route fairly quickly. A detour of a mile is perhaps insignificant when travelling by car, but it is a rather different matter for walkers. For those reasons, a shorter period for such orders seems to be wholly reasonable. The amendments propose a period of six months, which has been accepted as a reasonable compromise by all concerned parties.
When necessary, an authority can, before the six months perod is up, seek the Secretary of State's consent to a longer period of closure or restriction. That follows the present law.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend is on an important matter. Some years ago, I used to go horse riding in Heston farm, and when the M4 was being built, the bridlepaths that I used were closed for about two years. The building of major motorways and railways is important, but they can take two or three years to complete. Is it right that the local authority should be able to apply to the Secretary of State to close the appropriate footpaths or bridleways for that period?

10 am

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: If the footpath, bridlepath or cycle track is in integral part of a road, road restrictions will apply and people will not be able to treat the footpath or bridlepath as a separate entity. We could not have allowed a coach and horses to be driven through the arrangements for the building of the M25 simply because a foothpath ran across the route. We could not have a six-month rule for one bit and an 18-month rule for the other. If a footpath or bridle path is an integral part of a projected road, we are dealing with a highway and not with a footpath in the accepted sense of the word.
If the Secretary of State refuses consent, another order may not be brought forward until three months have elapsed. I do not think that the consent procedure will be used very often, but it is a sensible arrangement where circumstances warrant it or necessity dictates. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations the procedure to be followed in connection

with temporary restrictions by order or notice. Those powers are contained in clause 1(2), which is a substitute for section 16(2) of the 1984 Act. The regulations will be made by statutory instrument after consultation with the relevant bodies. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has given such assurances to the organisations that will be consulted about draft regulations.
For the purposes of illustration, I have concentrated on footpaths and bridleways, but the amendments apply equally to cycle tracks and byways that are open to all traffic. That is for the reasons that I have outlined and is subject to the explanation that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Definitions are provided in the final amendment by reference to existing statutory definitions. Surprisingly, they differ north and south of the border, so reference is made respectively to the position in England and Wales and in Scotland to which my Bill also extends.
We are working from Bill HL 76 which was printed on 9 May and the amendments refer to that document. The Bill was reprinted on 21 June after their Lordships' deliberations as Bill HL 99, and it contained some printing errors. They have been noted and I am assured that they will be rectified in the Act if the Bill is successful. The errors relate simply to cross-references consequential upon the insertion of the new amendments to section 15 where it appears in the schedule. In the wrongly printed Bill, in page 4, line 40, the reference to subsection 2 should be to subsection 3. In page 5, line 15 the reference to subsection 4 should be to subsection 5. In line 21 on the same page, the reference to subsection 3 should be to subsection 4. On page 15, line 48, the reference to subsection 2, should be to subsection 3. I would not like the House to think that I had been careless and had not noticed those errors. That is why I am drawing them to the attention of the House.
When I introduced my Bill, I scarcely thought that it would in any way promote the green image. Its primary objective is to rationalise and enhance the powers of highway authorities in dealing with temporary restrictions on roads where by far their most challenging problems must arise. I respect the interests of walkers, riders and cyclists, and I am glad to be able to meet their concerns by these amendments.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall be brief. The last time that I spoke on a Friday, I was upbraided by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who accused me of speaking for 77 minutes. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that you found that difficult to tolerate. It is amusing to note that, just 12 hours ago, the hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke for even longer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for drawing my attention to that and contrasting it with my 77–minute speech two months ago.
The Bill is a good one and deserves a speedy passage after consideration of the Lords amendments. I am delighted to support the amendment which the Lord Brougham and Vaux proposed and which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has drawn to our attention. The amendment is necessary because, when the Bill left this House, some voluntary organisations, especially the British Horse Society and the Ramblers Association, were worried about it. I am grateful to those organisations for allowing me to have copies of the correspondence between them and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.
The British Horse Society wrote to my hon. Friend on 2 May and said that it supported the amendment as a strengthening of the Bill in the context of footpaths and bridleways. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, the amendment also covers cycle tracks, so that restrictions should not be subject to 18 months but to a much more acceptable period of six months.
The British Horse Society asked my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the issue of appropriate guidance by his Department on the exercise of these powers by highway authorities, and the society would like to see consultations about the preparation of such guidance.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has responded to the British Horse Society, the Ramblers Association, and amendment No. 1. The Department of Transport consulted interested parties to ensure that the amended legislation meets with their approval. That shows the Department at its best. That is why it will be possible to incorporate the amendment in the Bill.
I see that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is present. He has taken a great interest in footpaths, bridleways and rambling for many years. He will agree that the way in which consultations have taken place on Lords amendment No. 1 before it was put to the House, are a great assurance to the people outside the House whom he represents. It is on the record that there have been exchanges of correspondence between the organisations and the Department.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is starting a long filibuster, with several of his hon. Friends, to stop us reaching the Protection of Badger Setts Bill. I warn him that Opposition Members will be tempted to call Divisions if the filibuster continues on this amendment, which could have been moved formally. We have been through all the matters which the hon. Gentleman is discussing. Divisions had a disastrous effect on the Bill on a previous occasion. I suggest to him that, in trying to prevent us from reaching the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, he should not tempt Opposition Members too far.

Mr. Brown: I would be prepared to have the charge of filibustering levelled by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker or by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), if I had been speaking for 77 minutes. However, I resent it utterly when I have given you, the House and now the hon. Gentleman, a commitment that I have no intention whatever of filibustering. My speech will probably now last six or seven minutes instead of four or five minutes. It will have been prolonged not by me but by that intervention.
When I have given an absolute assurance that I do not intend to filibuster and shall speak for only six or seven minutes, I am not prepared to have that charge levelled at me. I have spoken for less than four minutes. I spoke for 77 minutes two months before the hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke for 80 minutes. If I had spoken for a similar length of time today I would accept a charge of filibustering from the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
I now wish to make progress. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish would know right from the beginning of my speech if I intended to filibuster. The signs are not there today. Those who have had the good fortune to listen to some of my slightly more lengthy speeches can tell from

the tone and style of my speech and the speaking voice that I use whether I am filibustering. This morning I am not filibustering.
Representations were made in the House from various quarters. Therefore, it was agreed that a shorter period, of 18 months, would be appropriate where temporary orders would affect walkers, horse riders or cyclists, who may be rather more inconvenienced than motorised traffic by temporary closures and diversions. The effect of the amendment is simply to introduce a six-month time limit for such orders instead of an 18-month limit.
The amendment provides that the Secretary of State may extend the six-month period at the request of the authorities which issues the order.
That is an important fallback for the authorities. One cannot guarantee that everything will always be in apple-pie order within the six-month period. Equally, I understand worries about the original period of 18 months. That allows, as now, for some flexibility where circumstances justify a longer restriction. If my hon. Friend the Minister refuses the request, the authorities may not frustrate it and bring forward a further order until a period of three months has elapsed. Again, that formulation already exists in section 15.
Definitions are also provided for footpaths, bridleways, cycle tracks and byways open to all traffic by reference to existing statute, including those in Scotland where appropriate. The objective behind the amendment was agreed by the parties who intially expressed anxiety about long restrictions.
I bring my remarks to a close approximately two minutes later than would otherwise have been the case if the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish had not intervened.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is a great pleasure to speak on the amendment. This most important Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) was a good Bill from the outset but, because of the examination that it received in another place and, indeed, its examination by organisations such as the British Horse Society and the Ramblers Association, it is now a better Bill. None of us can doubt that, after the work that the organisations have done, and the generous response which they and members of another place received from my hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill has been improved.
I was a local councillor and then a member of the Greater London council, so my local government experience is confined to London. I must confess that I had not realised what a mess this aspect of the law is outside London. I am pleased to note that London can teach the rest of the country something in that respect. There is no doubt that the law was a mess. We may well have cause to be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South for sorting out the law on the matter.
Road users stand to gain from the presence of an adaptable and comprehensive measure to regulate traffic where necessary. The relaxation of the period for temporary orders will be widely welcomed as a useful step towards deregulation. The 18-month rule and the six-month rule created by the amendment will almost certainly simplify and reduce much of the bureaucracy.


I am led to speculate on why the Bill and the amendment are necessary. The answer is that people do not get the efficiency they want from local authorities. Neither is it satisfactory from other statutory undertakers. When a sewer is replaced, or gas, or electricity or British Telecom works take place, promises are made about how long the work will take. We have all experienced that and we know that the promises never come true: the works go on and on. If one is really lucky, when the gas board finishes, the water authority immediately starts work.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman's remarks on that matter should be directed to the Minister. It is well within the power of the Government to bring in legislation in a new street works Bill to deal with the problem that the hon. Gentleman outlines. That is not the purpose of this Bill.

Mr. Hughes: The Labour party thinks that it is possible to legislate for everything. I recognise that the Labour party takes the magic wand approach to policy.

Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry, but that remark is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the Department of Transport has held long sessions with working parties and that there is a consensus on the need for a new street works Bill. It is not a Labour party matter, although we support the proposal. There is a consensus across local authorities and the Departments involved.

Mr. Hughes: I am suitably admonished. I accept that that remark was not worthy of me. There again, it was an accurate description of Labour policy.
I wish to examine the matter in detail. Local authorities probably have a responsibility. Undoubtedly people who use footpaths, bridlepaths and cycle tracks have been frustrated about the amount of time that the paths have been obstructed. The main procedural difference is that orders require local publicity in advance of restrictions, whereas notices can introduce restrictions with immediate effect. The more summary notice procedure is therefore strictly time-limited. The Bill clarifies the need in both instances to have regard to alternative routes. It will allow procedures to be prescribed that will ensure adequate signing.
What are the incentives for speedy completion of works? We all know that footpaths and bridleways are highways. One would not think so from the way in which they are abused at times. Authorities are under a general duty under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 to
assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway
and
prevent…as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of the highways".
Authorities must still have regard to that duty when satisfying themselves of the need for a temporary restriction. Such restrictions will not be allowed to continue indefinitely, and those who wish to protect the right of people to use highways, bridleways, footpaths and cycleways will have the law on their side when they seek to ensure that that does not happen.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) when he responded to my intervention about major roadworks. Everybody wants major public works in principle, and

everyone demands that the Government should pay for them. No one, however, wants them built on his doorstep. We may have an interesting example of that when we come to debate private business next Thursday. We shall learn whether hon. Members think it more important to build a new tube line in London than to have life disrupted just outside their front door. It will be interesting to hear the reaction of hon. Members. No one wants disruption, but it must take place if we are to have the infrastructure that we require.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South flattered me unintentionally. He thought, when I was talking about riding horses in my youth, that I was referring to the building of the M25. I am rather older than he thinks. I was talking about the construction of the M4, which cut across the footpaths and bridleways that I was accustomed to using when on horseback. I am grateful for the clarification that the Bill will not stop that usage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke about the British Horse Society and the consultation with it. He posed a question, and I am uncertain about the answer that he received. I know that the society, in a letter of 2 May to my hon. Friend the Minister, asked to be included
among the interested bodies to be consulted on procedure regulations to be made under Clause I.
What was the answer to that request? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he replies to the debate. The society and other organisations should be included in consultation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to direct his remarks to the amendments that are before the House.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your intervention. I recall that the subject of consultation, and participation in it, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I was seeking clarification. It is important that the British Horse Society and other organisations should be consulted and that their views should be known in detail, and not only in terms of the Bill, the provisions of which will be set in concrete when we enact it.
Lords Amendment No. 8 is important because of definitions. We always think that we know what we are talking about, and before I considered the Bill I thought that I knew what a footpath was. It is sometimes said, "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it." When the Bill becomes law, it will be abundantly clear how a footpath, a cycle track or a bridleway is defined. The amendment redefines these facilities in a commonsense way that will be helpful to everyone.
When others come to determine tricky problems of protecting the countryside, including footpaths and bridleways, I believe that they will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South on accepting Lords amendment No. 8 and on introducing the Bill to the statute book. I say that in a wider sense than footpaths and bridleways, because I consider the Bill to be an important measure, if a limited one. In times to come, people may want to name footpaths and bridleways after my hon. Friend; instead of Grimsdyke, which runs through part of my constituency, we shall have Brandon-Bravo footpaths and cycleways. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is to be congratulated on having successfully piloted his Bill through to this stage. It has not always been easy. I recall that there was one occasion earlier in the proceedings when it almost seemed that the Bill had been lost. But he rescued it from the brink, and has seen to it that we are taking our final opportunity today to wish the Bill well.
It was perhaps a mark of the astuteness of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that he should choose a measure whose general principles had already received a favourable response when they were the subject of wide consultation with interested bodies back in 1987. I refer to the TAPWORK report—the report of the traffic and parking working group—which my Department produced following discussion with local authority associations.
I understand that this group continues to provide a forum for discussion on a range of traffic and parking issues of mutual concern to the Department and authorities. I welcome that. The issues at stake in this area are as much of local relevance as they are nationally, and can only benefit from the mutual discussion and exchange of views which such a forum provides.
Other recommendations in the report have also found their way into law, notably in the Parking Act 1989, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). We are indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House who bring forward worthwhile measures of this sort. Sponsoring a private Member's Bill can be a bit of a thankless task, but those who persevere, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, have their reward, if only in terms of personal satisfaction.
The proposal to relax the existing consent requirements on temporary orders was included among a number of other proposals for improving traffic and parking powers and practices. As my hon. Friend has said, it met with majority approval. Local highway authorities, in particular, supported the suggestion that the time periods should be relaxed. The existing three-month time limit outside London has proved unrealistic. It has resulted in large numbers of orders being referred to the Department for extension. The case for an extention is incontrovertible. It makes no sense for central Government to be involved in such matters on a routine basis.
So it is clearly time for change. Local highway authorities are responsible bodies. They should be trusted to make their own judgment in these matters without having to resort to the Department.
Local highway authorities are also creatures of statute—with statutory obligations to exercise their traffic regulation powers with due regard to maintaining access, to the effects on the amenity of an area, and to other relevant matters. They must
secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic".
They must
prevent as far as possible the stopping up or obstruction of the highway".
And they must
protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of the highway".
These duties are enshrined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Highways Act 1980.
Against the background of these safeguards, it is indefensible to continue to subject authorities to a second-guessing consent regime after three months, especially where measures of a temporary nature only are involved. The case for relaxation is therefore overwhelming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has explained the amendments themselves in careful detail. I fully endorse his remarks. I am happy to express the Government's support for the amendments which are before the House and which were approved in the other place. what they will do is help to provide an incentive for authorities to limit the duration of orders affecting walkers, horse riders and other non-motorised traffic. It ought to be possible—as he says—for the inconvenience to such groups to be minimised, and rights of way restored more quickly after their temporary suspension.
The arguments advanced by the Ramblers Association and others were cogent and persuasive. I was therefore happy to give written undertakings to them and to the British Horse Society that their concerns had been noted.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for his kind comments about the Department's response to those who were concerned. It is very much the business of the Department, where it possibly can, to ensure that agreement is obtained. In this instance, the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, together with my officials, has resolved the difficulties. It may be appropriate to put the undertakings on record, which I was not able to do in earlier proceedings. I shall read out the main text of my letter of 30 April, addressed to the deputy secretary of the Ramblers Association:
I believe you are not opposed to the Bill, in principle, but have a number of concerns over the details, on some of which there was unfortunately insufficient time for debate last Friday. I discussed these with Mr. Brandon-Bravo and we had agreed between us a number of points on which we hoped we could have satisfied you. It may be helpful if I record them below.
We are content for the Bill to be amended so that temporary orders affecting traffic other than motor vehicles on a footpath, bridleway, cycle track or byway have a more limited duration. We would like to propose 6 months, which would provide a limited relaxation on the present 3 month period, with a power for the Secretary of State to authorise a longer period, on the same basis as now under section 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. A suitable amendment would be brought forward in the Lords.
I am also prepared to consider whether, when the Bill is enacted, appropriate guidance might be issued by the Department to highway authorities about the exercise of their powers. This would aim to emphasise the statutory duties which already oblige them to protect rights of way and minimise obstruction. The Bill enhances the provisions about traffic signs. Guidance would underline the need for clear signing and its maintenance throughout the period of any restriction. It could also endorse the requirements in respect of alternative routes. I would be prepared to involve interested bodies in the preparation of such guidance. They will, in any case, be consulted on procedure regulations to be made under clause 1.
10.30 am
Those undertakings are now on the record, and I promise the House that they will be carefully respected. I am glad to report that the responses received were united in their welcome for, and acceptance of, this proposition.
For the Ramblers Association—this is the point that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised in the original debates—Mr. Trevelyan suggested,


in his reply, that the proposed guidance might be discussed in due course in the rights of way review committee, an informal non-statutory committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). At the most recent meeting of the Committee, which I believe was on Monday this week, whose constituent members include the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission and a variety of other bodies concerned with countryside matters, I understand that members expressed their satisfaction with the outcome on the Bill and were content to be consulted in due course through their representative organisations. I should like to put on the record my gratitude to them for their co-operation, which I know is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
As has been said, clause 1 provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe procedures to be followed in connection with the exercise by highway authorities of their powers under the Bill. This approach mirrors that already followed in connection with the main types of traffic regulation and parking place order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It has the advantage that procedures can be more easily modified at a later stage to reflect changes in circumstances; and that time can be taken to consult affected parties and take account of their views in drawing up the necessary regulations. The 1984 Act requires such consultation before regulations can be made. We value that process and will look forward to receiving responses from consultees in due course.
I hope that we shall consult on draft regulations during the autumn. Suitable guidance would be prepared at the same time. We would then aim to implement what I hope by that time will be an Act by commencement order, and publish the guidance, simultaneously with introducing the procedure regulations—perhaps, I hope, around the turn of the year.
Regulations on procedure will replace the provisions currently set out in schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Those deal, at present, with requirements for the prior publication of notices in local newspapers before a temporary order is made, and further notices to be published when the order is made. The notices must state the effect of the order and include a description of alternative routes available.
In the case of temporary restrictions by notice rather than by order, there is no requirement for prior publicity, but the same obligation to describe alternative routes must apply. In all cases, whether the restriction is by means of a notice or order, street notices must be posted conspiciouly at each end of the road and at intermediate junctions.
It is envisaged that new procedure regulations will cover much the same ground. There may be some modifications. In the case of motorways and urban clearways, for example, it hardly seems appropriate to require the posting of street notices where motorists cannot possibly stop to read them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how all that relates to the amendments.

Mr. Atkins: I had hoped, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was dealing with the amendments in the round. As we did not have the opportunity to debate the details that were

raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on Second Reading, I was seeking to deal with them now. I hope that that meets with your approval.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Minister can tell me and the House how he relates the matter that he is describing to the amendments that we are considering; otherwise, he must address his remarks specifically to the amendments.

Mr. Atkins: I shall endeavour to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was discussing those matters at the request of the House, following the Second Reading debate, when I undertook to provide amendments that the representatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South could table in another place. I said that, when the amendments returned to this House, I would respond to them, and that is what I was endeavouring to do.
Perhaps I can continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if you find me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not be too prolix and that he will recognise that the Chair has a duty to safeguard the interests of other hon. Members who are waiting for their Bills to be reached. This is a private Members' day.

Mr. Atkins: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to respond to the real concerns that were raised in the original debate, which I was requested to do by hon. Members of all parties, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and others raised a number of topics. I thought that I had recorded my desire to do so in my earlier remarks, and my gratitude to those people who responded as a result of the amendments that were tabled in the Lords. What I am saying relates to those amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South will agree with that. I shall endeavour to proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and see whether I can stay within your terms of order.
I am glad that, in his later comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South recognised the importance of traffic management. The main impact of the Bill will be in respect of traffic on the road network. We must ensure that highway authorities have an adequate and efficient means of managing the network. That is as relevant to temporary measures for emergency work, repairs to water mains, or other remedial work as it is in respect of permanent traffic orders. With rising car ownership and the increasing demand for travel, we must use every endeavour to ensure that we make the best use of the available road capacity.
I know that many hon. Members are concerned about congestion and delays that result from roadworks. That matter was referred to in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The Bill does not seek to strengthen the law in respect of road works by utilities, and the matter of subsequent reinstatement. Many hon. Members have made clear their support for more far-reaching changes in the management of utility street works. The Horne report—the report of a review carried out under the chairmanship of Professor Horne—made a convincing case for reform. The Government accepted that case, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Deptford also accepts it. I hope that,


when that matter is debated in the House, we shall have a short debate and reach agreement on the reform of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, which covers the matter that we have discussed.
The Bill, however, is now an appropriate vehicle for piecemeal changes to street works legislation. I hope that we shall bring forward such legislation in the not too distant future.
The Bill and the Lords amendments relate to the TAPWORK report—the report of the traffic and parking working group—to which I referred in my opening remarks. The report supported the recommendation of the Horne committee that highway authorities should have the power to charge public utilities undertaking road works, so recovering the costs of making traffic orders, erecting signs and other associated costs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has anything at all to do with the amendments. Am I wrong?

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this matter arose during the debate and I am responding to it. I thought that that was the task of a Minister during debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that these matters relate to the debate—I may be wrong. Perhaps the matter was referred to when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair.

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you were not in the Chair when that matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, and the hon. Member for Deptford intervened; Mr. Speaker was in the Chair at the time. In the circumstances, I thought that it would be wise for me to touch on that matter now, and I hoped that the House would approve of that. That was certainly my intention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has not sought to include those matters in his Bill. Perhaps he was wise to limit his ambitions in that respect. The Government have, however, already accepted the principle that the highway authority should be able to recover from any body excavating in the highway any reasonable costs in making temporary traffic orders and signposting traffic diversions. That is what the Bill and the Lords amendments are all about.
In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily. There are matters that I can gloss over, in view of the concerns that have been expressed. The ones to which you have just referred are not incorporated in the Bill. In many respects I am glad that they are not.
On Report, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the sole aim of the Bill was to help bureaucrats in the Department and in local authorities and that it would do nothing for the general public. That is not the case. Anyone who has worked in local government, as I have, will know that local authorities take their highways responsibilities seriously. Their aim is to minimise disruption from roadworks and maintenance and to manage traffic efficiently in the public interest. The Department's objectives in that respect are no different. My hon. Friend's Bill, and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, are not designed simply to save my officials' time. He would be the first to admit that.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend has done a remarkably good job in trying to co-ordinate the

speed and pace at which road repairs are going ahead, but is he aware that in my constituency there is a positively third-world problem?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should obtain a copy of the Lords amendments before he intervenes again.

Mr. Atkins: Perhaps my hon. Friend ought to come to see me on another occasions, when we might discuss the third-world effects of road congestion in Crawley.
On Report, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the sole aim of the Bill was to help bureaucrats. However, it is aimed at streamlining the process and cutting out wasteful and unnecessary bureaucracy at the centre. I am confident that the aims of the Bill and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, at my hon. Friend's suggestion, will commend themselves to the whole House.
On Report, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—who, I regret to say, is not, unusually, in his place—took us on a brief visit to Swallow Falls. It reminds me that the Bill, and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, relate to Wales as well as to England and Scotland, as does the 1984 Act that the Bill seeks to amend.
On a number of occasions, our debates have also touched on green lanes, the colloquial expression for byways open to all traffic, otherwise known as BOATs. The amendments that we are considering would introduce the shorter six-month time limit for temporary orders affecting byways, which Lords amendment No. 8 defines more prosaically as
a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used.
That definition already appears in section 127 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not linger on byways, a subject that properly deserves separate attention. Suffice it to say that I share the desire to preserve historic routes and that I am concerned at instances where there appears to be inappropriate or over-intensive use by vehicular traffic.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been requested by the Countryside Commission to initiate traffic regulation powers on part of the Ridgeway national trail. Preparations are in hand for draft orders that would impose a ban on recreational vehicle use on Sundays throughout the year. The aim is to reduce the scope for conflict between vehicular users and those on foot or horseback. Draft orders will be published in due course. There will be an opportunity for public comment and representation.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling that the orders go far too far as it is, and that the conflict between users of vehicles and pedestrians and horses has not been satisfactorily resolved by the Government? Further consideration must be given to the extreme selfishness of those who drive motor bikes and motor cars over those roads, resulting in such dreadful effects for horse riders and walkers.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I know that he feels deeply about the matter and that he speaks about it with considerable knowledge. I am sure that he will pursue it. If I dealt with it now, you


would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will write to me, when I shall be more than happy to pursue the matter.

Mr. Michael Brown: If the Lords amendments were passed, I understand that the highway authority could ask the Minister to extend the period beyond six months, but that the Minister could refuse the request. After such a refusal, highway authorities could not make another application for at least another three months. My hon. Friend would have an absolute power in respect of highway authorities if the Lords amendments were passed. In what circumstances would he use his absolute power to refuse a highway authority permission for an extension beyond the original six-month period?

Mr. Atkins: I am cautious about suggesting that I have absolute power over anything. I should not wish to exercise absolute power. However, as usual, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head and in his question has also defined the answer.
The aim of the draft orders would be to reduce the scope for conflict between vehicular users and those on foot or horseback. Draft orders will be published in due course. There will be an opportunity for public comment and representation before the matter is taken further. I am reminded that at one of my earlier meetings with my departmental officials the topics included green lanes, orange badges and red routes. I do not intend to be drawn on matters that are outside the terms of the Lords amendments.
Traffic signals are an essential component of many temporary traffic schemes. I am very nearly at the close of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which, as the House will recall, were the result of a commitment that I made at an earlier stage when I was pressed, not least by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, to establish the procedure for tabling the Lords amendments. I am grateful that the House recognises that it is important for me to expand on the amendments.
Traffic signals are an essential component of many temporary traffic schemes, the subject of the Bill and the Lords amendments. They can make the difference between an orderly queue at roadworks, and chaos as alternating traffic competes for priority. It is sometimes sensible to phase roadworks along a stretch of road so that the minimum length of road is out of commission at any one time. In such cases, the temporary restriction need apply only where appropriate traffic signs are in place.
However, when the temporary order is first made it may not be known what the contractor's sequence of work will be. There is a need for flexibility to cope with that. One of the less conspicuous items in the Bill, clause 14(4), provides the necessary freedom to organise these matters in the most effective manner by reference to section 4(1) of the 1984 Act, which allows a traffic regulation order to have effect only where the relevant traffic signs are in place.
The Bill retains the present power to make temporary restrictions in the interests of protecting the public from danger. It is equally important that safety at roadworks is given due consideration. That is why I welcome clause 1(5), which ensures that temporary speed restrictions at roadworks and contraflow sections on motorways are

subject to the same penalties as speeding offences elsewhere. The maximum penalty will remain at level 3 —£400, as now—but will be strengthened by the additional powers of obligatory endorsement and discretionary disqualification.
On report I made a comment about being an avid follower of grand prix and other motor sports. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish thought that I might have powers to close roads temporarily for motor racing. I have to disappoint him; I have no such powers. Racing on the public highway is an offence. Motorists who do not observe speed limits through coned-off sections of road are acting foolishly and dangerously, as well as illegally. The Bill will ensure that they face the full force of the law.
The Bill contains a collection of small but useful measures. Taken together—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am not entirely sure that the Minister gave me the assurance I sought about consultation with the British Horse Society under clause 1. He referred to the consultations and the correspondence, but I am not sure that he said that he intended to consult the society under the terms of clause 1.

Mr. Atkins: I certainly intend to consult wherever necessary. That has always been the policy of the Department of Transport. Given the opportunity to consult, we always do so.
In conclusion, the Bill contains a collection of small but useful measures. Taken together, they will provide more flexibility and better powers to manage traffic for temporary periods in the interests of minimising congestion and disruption. They will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and help authorities to respond more quickly and positively when the need arises.
In congratulating my hon. Friend on the way in which he handled the Bill, which demonstrates his skill in these matters, I give the Bill and the Lords amendments my wholehearted support.

Ms. Ruddock: I shall make the briefest of remarks, because I hope that we shall proceed to other private Members' Bills this morning.
I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks —of course only those which were in order—in supporting the Lords amendments. It is a considerable tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that he so powerfully raised the interests of the Ramblers Association, walkers and riders at the start of our proceedings on the Bill, leading to the success of the Lords amendments which have enabled us to reach a happy consensus.
Perhaps I am anticipating today's conclusion, but, as one who has successfully piloted a private Member's Bill through the House, I know just how much stress is involved and how thrilling it is when one reaches the final hurdle and, one hopes, gets over it. However, I warn the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that he will have to make sure that the Minister keeps his undertaking to make regulations. To date, the Government have failed to put the regulations to my Bill. I am sure that that comment was out of order, but I thought that I might get away with it.
I conclude on a happy note. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. It is indeed a Bill of small but useful measures. We support the Lords amendments and the Bill as amended.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 0.

NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Harry Barnes and



Mr. Dennis Skinner.

It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not the loser as a result of this childish procedural nonsense; the loser is the British public. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) graciously gave the Bill the Opposition's blessing. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the second time in the past few months that a procedural attempt has been made—by people who otherwise profess their support for the Bill—to ensure that it is blocked. Is there no way in which Back Benchers can seek some form of protection from this crazy nonsense?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's resentment, but it is not a matter for me. Nothing out of order has taken place, and I think that it would be unfruitful for us to embark on a post mortem.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is one.

Mr. Skinner: I think that you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be knowledgeable enough to know that what happened this morning was that the Government failed to get their required 40 hon. Members to vote. That is an indictment of Tory Members and others who were unable to be present. Let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you were not in the Chair at the beginning, although you were probably present—that at the beginning we were happy to

allow the Bill and the amendment to go through on the nod. It is pretty clear that Conservative Member were talking at length to stop the protection of Badger setts Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. It will not help the House or hon. Members who have Bills—

Several Hon Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not seek to rise when the occupant of the Chair is on his or her feet. It only wastes time, and it is not useful. Unless hon. Members raise genuine points of order, I warn them that I shall not hesitate to interrupt them.

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there no way in which you can use your influence to tell the House whether the Government are filibustering in an attempt to block all today's Bills? After all, the Minister spoke for half an hour on the last Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Point of order, Mr. Martyn Jones.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the Bill has merely been adjourned until the next sitting, which will comprise Government business. If the Government wish the Bill to go ahead, they can give time for it on Monday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unlikely though it may seem, that is correct.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?

Mr Robert G. Hughes: It is entirely genuine. I raised a point of order earlier with Mr. Speaker about the disgraceful conduct of the hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard that exchange, and I remember that Mr. Speaker ruled on it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking a second ruling from me.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this point of order is more genuine than the last one.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is genuine. It is a different point of order relating to my previous point of order. The House has already been insulted; now a filibuster is in progress, with pointless votes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is merely a different bogus point of order.

Orders of the Day — Rights of Way Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF PART IX OF HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 18, after second "if" insert "(a)".

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Leigh: These are technical amendments, but it is only proper that I should briefly explain them to the House.
I thank my predecessor Lord Kimball for so ably steering my Bill through the other place. I also thank my noble Friend the Earl of Radnor for his diligence and experience, which enabled him to spot a point that had hitherto been missed, despite all the careful scrutiny that the Bill had received from those on the working party that developed it—lawyers, officials of three Government Departments, parliamentary draftsmen and so on. The point did not surface during the Bill's earlier passage through the House, despite the careful consideration that it was given.
Although the amendments are being dealt with as Government amendments, they derive from that important point. It concerns the definition of "grass" in new section 137A, which the Bill inserts into the Highways Act 1980 to deal with the problem of crops that are allowed to encroach on or grow on a right of way. I do not need to remind the House that the new section is the key provision of the Bill. The survey carried out by the Countryside Commission into the condition of the rights-of-way network found that crops growing on the line of rights of way were the single most prevalent factor affecting the public's use and enjoyment of footpaths and bridleways.
The vagueness and uncertainty of the present law severely limits the ability of local authorities to deal with the problems effectively. The amendments go to the heart of an important Bill. Section 137A requires a farmer to prevent any crop "other than grass"—that is the key phrase—from either obliterating the line of the right of way on the ground or making the right of way inconvenient to use. The Bill will impose on the farmer a clear duty to ensure that the line of the right of way is apparent on the ground. If he fails to do so, the authority may clear or cut back the crop as necessary and recover its costs, or it may prosecute him. It is essential that the section is as clear and unambiguous as possible. When the Bill left this House it was not, and that could have led to all sorts of problems.
The section applies to a crop "other than grass" for a number of reasons. I have spoken before about the problem caused to walkers and riders by the invasion of paths by oilseed rape, nicknamed by some "the yellow peril" because of its vivid colour and its habit of growing as a dense impenetrable mass reminiscent of a tropical rain forest.
More traditional crops—wheat, oats, rye, barley and the like—can be a considerable problem when they are

growing across the line of a right of way. It is hard to have an enjoyable walk in the countryside if one must wade through acre after acre—should I now say hectare after hectare?—of knee or waist-high crops, particularly if they are wet.
We have heard from hon. Members about the scale of the problem and how such crops can deter many people from even venturing on to footpaths and bridleways. As every survey shows, most people who walk in the countryside are very law abiding and are discouraged from walking by such hindrances.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My hon. Friend says that the majority of people who walk in the countryside are very law abiding. Is he aware of the increasing concern among farmers about people failing to secure gates and to leave the countryside as they found it? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Bill and the Lords amendments deal sufficiently with the farming community's concern in that respect?

Mr. Leigh: I am anxious to keep strictly to the amendment. My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point and speaks from personal experience, but I hope that he will not mind if I do not go down that footpath because I want to remain strictly in order. As always, he made his point fairly and very well.
It has always been accepted that there is no justification for applying the provisions of the new section to pasture land—pasture can be either permanent or pasture that has been sown like any other crop—and that they should not apply to hay meadows. It was pointed out in an earlier debate that hay meadows can be pleasant to walk through.
The problem throughout has been how to define grass. The amendment addresses that because it was the substance of what their Lordships were worried about. The problem was considered by the working party of the rights of way committee. That group, which represents all interests in a powerful network, put together the excellent measures in the Bill, and I stress that the Bill is widely supported by all sides of the countryside network and hon. Members. The committee's legal advisers paid much attention to the problem.
Hon. Members might say that crops and grass are understandable and straightforward terms, and so they are, and the working party's initial advice from its experienced learned counsel was that the courts would have no difficulty with either term. The Bill, as first presented to the House and debated on Second Reading, simply referred to
a crop other than grass
without attempting to define either term. The House was satisfied with that; although several important points of detail were made by hon. Members, that was not one of them.
Doubts were first expressed, however, about several detailed points on the drafting of the Bill by Department of Transport lawyers. In their initial reaction, they were unkind enough to say that the word "grass" might be roast beef to litigators. Whether grass can be roast beef to the Department of Transport or anyone else I do not know, but they raised several detailed points that caused much difficulty to those who drafted the Bill.
That caused the working party to reconsider the issue with the experienced draftsmen who had framed the Bill and to take further technical advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Farmers


Union on how grass might be defined. It considered many possibilities, but, as I do not want to prolong the debate, I will not go into them. Suffice it to say, briefly, that it considered the definition of grass in previous Acts of Parliament, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and in common agricultural policy set-aside procedures.
The working party found two problems, the first of which is technical. The crops that must be kept clear of rights of way must include cereal crops—wheat, oats, barley and the like. The difficulty is that, technically, or botanically at least, certain cereals—wheat, barley and oats, for example—are also classified as a grass. It might have been possible for a clever lawyer to argue that a crop growing on a right of way was perfectly legal and permissible, however inconvenient it might be to path users. That is why the amendment is so important. If their Lordships had not spotted the problem, it might have been possible to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. That is why we must briefly discuss it.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I must declare an interest, because, as a farmer, I am growing oats and vetches for silage, and it might be difficult to define how the amendment would apply to them. If there are difficulties with cereal crops grown for silage, could not they be overcome if the so-called problem crops to which my hon. Friend referred—rye, oats, wheat, maize, barley and the like—were defined in the amendment? If they were set out in statute, it might overcome the difficulty and prevent those of us who earn a paltry living by farming from running foul of the law.

Mr. Leigh: That is an important intervention; my hon. Friend speaks from personal experience. I rang the executors of Sir Joseph Nickerson, which is one of the leading seed companies in the country and is my constituent. If I wanted to waste time, which I do not, I could go through an enormous list of varieties of winter wheat, winter barley and spring barley. I have the set-aside procedures and could read out all the crops that are listed.
My hon. Friend's suggestion would not have worked because the schedule to the Act would have had to be so long that it would be unworkable. I am trying to go through this carefully, step by step, but if my hon. Friend is patient I shall explain that, having rejected the schedule setting out what is or is not a grass, and having gone through those difficult matters botanically, we have found another way of proceeding. I hope that at the end of my brief explanation the House will be satisfied about these technical but important matters.
As I said, the problem could have caused much confusion in the courts, and it has been made more difficult by the great advance in recent years in plant breeding. A range of cereal crops, many of which, botanically, are considered as grasses, have come on to the market.
The second problem is a practical one—to achieve a definition of grass that will not only be satisfactory for the statute book and understood by the courts but can be understood and applied by the farmer and the rights of way officer. The working party has striven hard to make the Bill as clear and straightforward as possible, and the essence of the Bill is that it must be easily understood. The working party was keen to ensure that the rights of way

officer should not have to be a qualified agronomist or have a degree in botany to work out whether the law was being broken. He must be able to do so at any stage of the crop, or at least as soon as it begins to inconvenience users of the right of way. That goes to the heart of the Bill and I reassure farmers that they need not worry about a crop growing on a path; they need to worry when it becomes inconvenient to users of the path. One should not have to wait until the crop is matured to be able to see what it is. The farmer needs a straightforward, simple definition of what he can or cannot grow on a right of way. It is no good expecting him to refer to a long technical list of botanical species and sub-species or different strains to decide whether he is keeping within the law.
The working party rejected as impractical the idea of identifying individual species or strains, as identified in some Acts or Common Market regulations. Its draftsmen produced a simple—I am coming to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked—and straightforward definition that a particular crop shall be treated as grass—and these are the words that were in the Bill before it went to the other place—
if, and only if, it is of a variety or mixture commonly used for pasture, silage or haymaking, whether or not it is intended for such a use in that case.
That seemed to satisfy everyone. The Government's parliamentary draftsmen, the lawyers, even the lawyers of the Department of Transport who had caused so much trouble earlier, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and the ramblers were all satisfied with what seemed to be a reasonable way of defining the problem.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend is my next-door neighbour and represents a large rural agricultural constituency, where probably more cereals are grown than anywhere else in the country. Is he aware that the definition of grass in the Bill, at least when I last heard it, mentioned silage? Is he aware that silage can be made from cereals? Is not that a problem?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If he will be patient for a moment, I shall deal with the issue of cereals being used for silage, which is a relatively modern procedure. This point also goes to the heart of the Lords amendments.
The amendment was one of a series that were designed to add clarity to the Bill and which both sides of the Committee were pleased to accept. The long experience and wise counsels in the other place, which are so valuable to us, especially on countryside matters, came into play in this issue. The Earl of Radnor, from his long experience of farming and the countryside, noticed what no one else had noticed, but which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has already noticed—in the past, certain cereals have been grown for silage. At once it was possible to see that there was a gaping hole in the middle of the Bill. Perhaps the Earl of Radnor had in mind also the rapid and continuing development of new strains and species. He was concerned that the words in the Bill could still lead to legal arguments, which we are all trying hard to avoid.
Raising the point in this way encouraged the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to look at the problem again on behalf of the working party. It found that,


although oats were once grown widely for silage, that practice is currently restricted to a few hundred acres in Scotland. As the Bill applies only to England and Wales and as no cereals are grown for this purpose in England and Wales, the Department's initial advice was that any claim that cereals were commonly grown for silage would be unlikely to succeed.
At this point, therefore, it seemed that their Lordships' fears were ungrounded and that the amendment was not necessary. But it was then realised that failed cereal crops could sometimes be used as pasture or be fed to livestock while they were still green. That might be the case with, for example, a crop that had been damaged by frost or had failed to ripen. Occasionally a farmer might run short of feed and want to use a growing cereal crop as emergency pasture.
In the light of all this, everyone realised at that stage that the Earl of Radnor's amendment was a valuable and important addition to the Bill. It will close this potentially troublesome loophole by excluding any cereal crop from the definition of "grass". It does so regardless of arguments about botanical species or strains, with all the difficulties that I have described to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, and it clearly sets out what a crop will be grown and used for.
Unfortunately a further difficulty arose, for which I must apologise. The parliamentary draftsmen were not entirely satisfied with the words chosen by the Earl of Radnor to frame his amendment and preferred their own words. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have repeatedly come up against parliamentary and departmental draftsmen and we have always given in to their demands, just as we have done today. The difficulty led to a Government amendment to an amendment on Report in the other place.
I have gone through the story logically step by step and am now coming to what I hope will be a happy ending. The amendment is a small but valuable addition to the Bill.

Mr. Colvin: I thought that my hon. Friend was coming to a point that he has not yet covered. Although he has dealt with grass and cereals in the countryside, he has not covered another crop. I have a crop of peas in at the moment, mixed with oats and vegetables. Would a pea crop be adequately covered by the Bill? I bring my hon. Friend back again to the possibility of having a schedule. It would be cumbersome, but it would leave the matter beyond doubt, as it would set out precisely what crops were covered and what were not. What about peas?

Mr. Leigh: That is an interesting point. At about half-past eleven last night, I asked myself that question when an officer of the Countryside Commission and I were discussing how we could get the Bill through today. He told me that he was satisfied that the Bill covered all crops, whether they are soft root crops, peas or beans. The Countryside Commission was anxious that the Bill should be passed, and it is satisfied that these matters are covered.
Although sometimes the House has a reputation for shouting party political abuse, it comes out best on this type of issue. There is all-party support on this technical and complicated Bill. There have been hundreds of hours of detailed scrutiny by parliamentary draftsmen. Thanks to the efforts of my noble Friend Lord Kimball, the Earl

of Radnor, members of the Labour party, the Countryside Commission, the NFU, the CLA and Conservative Members, and provided the House agrees to the Lords amendments, the Bill will be right, will work and will be a major benefit to the 17 million people who every year walk through the countryside.

Mr. Michael Stern: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who said that he hoped that the Lords amendments would lead to a happy ending, by expressing a small measure of doubt. As he knows, the Bill is supported by both sides of the House, and I have expressed my support for it in the past. My concern, as on the previous occasion when I spoke, relates to the fact that the Bill must be not only enforceable by farmers and countryside officers, who can be presumed to have the detailed technical knowledge necessary to enforce its provisions, but immediately obvious to ordinary members of the public, like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and myself—two keen ramblers. People must be able to see clearly when the Bill's provisions are breached and when they are not. I have severe doubts whether the amendment as drafted, without a schedule, will make the Bill more easily enforceable.
Without a schedule, we have to fall back on whether a path, bridleway or road is being encroached upon by a crop of cereals or by grass. I am not sure that the definition will be obvious to the average rambler like me or even to the average amateur botanist. My first query is directed to either my hon. Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle: in the absence of a schedule, is there in statute or case law a definition of "cereal" which could be used instantly without recourse to further legislation?

Mr. Leigh: I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's question. I understand his anxiety. I am sure that he will accept, however, that it would have been absurd to have drafted the Bill in such a way as to make it illegal for a farmer to grow grass across a right of way.

Mr. Stern: indicated assent.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend accepts that point. One must let the grass grow. Having accepted that, one is up against the second problem—botanically, many cereals are grasses. We all know that cereal crops are a major disincentive to walkers, and this is the key point of the Bill. My hon. Friend heard me refer to the many strains of cereals that exist and the many new strains that are being developed. I hope that he accepts that, as a matter of common sense, we have got the Bill about right. The farmer will understand that he can grow grass on a right of way, provided that it is not a cereal. That is a common-sense way forward. I believe that he can make the legislation stick.

Mr. Stern: I accept my hon. Friend's point. The majority of farmers who wish to stay within the confines of the Bill will understand it. My point relates to the small minority of farmers who, as in the past, do not necessarily wish to stay within the strict confines of the law and those people who are not farmers, and presumably do not have the technical knowledge to recognise a cereal crop. Those who feel that the law is being encroached upon will not immediately be able to say, "I must report this offence to the highways authority, because it involves encroachment


by grass"; or, "This is an offence that I must report to the Countryside Commission, because we are dealing with encroachment by cereals"; or, "This is not an offence."
11.30 am
As I explained to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion, I am concerned that although we must accept—as he does and, as he knows, I do—that the vast majority of people who use the countryside will do so with good will and in the spirit of the legislation, which I hope reaches the statute book today, we must remember the areas where friction has arisen. In that connection, we must question whether the legal definition that we are using in the Bill will aid the resolution of problems that have arisen as a result of that friction.
I must go more deeply into why I am worried by the absence of a definition of cereals. I have had the good fortune to refer to what I understand to be the standard work on British grasses. In "Grasses" by Mr. C. E. Hubbard, I find that there are eight different groups of grasses which are commonly referred to as cereals.
I will not go through all the groups because I am conscious of the need to make progress today. But I shall refer to the three groups which are commonly referred to under the heading of oats, and I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I refer to them also by their Latin definitions, not least because the debate will be unintelligible to botanists without mention of those definitions.
That group of oats is known as the avenas. The three groups of avena which are commonly referred to as cereals are the avena-strigosa, which is the bristle or small oat; the avena sativa, which is the common oat and the one most frequently seen; and the avena byzantina—not often seen in this country—which is the red or Algerian oat. None of those groups includes perhaps one of the commonest plants in the countryside, the avena fatua, which is the common wild oat.
So we immediately have the difficulty that even by basic botanical definition, there are four similar plants, three of which are cereals and one of which is not. When we consider the structure of those plants, the position to anyone other than a farmer or acknowledged botanist becomes even more confusing because all four plants are annuals, all four can grow to about 100 cm high and all four have culms—for the benefit of non-botanists I should explain that the culm is the overall structure of the seed of the plant which can be tufted or solitary, erect or bent and can contain three to five nodes.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle appreciates that a non-botanist, walking along a path which has been encroached on by something which even to a non-botanist is recognised as a member of the oat family, whether wild or cultivated, will have some difficulty knowing whether an offence has been committed and, if it has, to whom to complain. If the encroachment is by cereal oats, my hon. Friend may say that it will be obvious because the rambler might see the cereal oats stretching for some distance, but where a field has been left to pasture and it has been seeded—

Mr. Leigh: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is making a serious point and, while I cannot claim to be a botanist, I intervene because I think that I have the answer to his question. The Lords amendment would make the provision read:
For the purposes of the application of sub-section (1) above in the case of a particular crop, the crop shall be treated as grass if, and only if… it is a variety commonly used for pasture, silage or haymaking, and…it is not a cereal crop.
In other words, the oats about which my hon. Friend is speaking must meet those two tests. But the problem he raises would be addressed not simply by that provision, for they might not meet those tests. The difficulty would be addressed by the point I made in my initial remarks, when I explained that when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did its reasearch, it found that although it may have been true that oats were once widely grown for silage, that practice is currently restricted to a few hundred acres in the far western islands of Scotland, and the Bill will apply only to England and Wales. So my hon. Friend's point about oats, although well made, should not be a problem in England and Wales, where the Bill will apply.

Mr. Stern: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I fear that he has not taken mine. I accept that when it comes to enforcing the legislation, as a result of the expert advice which my hon. Friend just cited, the enforcement authority may be clear that we are dealing with encroachment by a grass, the common wild oat, or by a crop—any of the other versions of avena to which I referred.
The trouble is that by the time we have reached that stage we shall be several steps down the road. We do not have, as a result of the Lords amendment, a list of the different botanical varieties of oat available to the Countryside Commission and the highways authority so that, on receipt of a complaint from, say, myself as a rambler, the highways authority will immediately be able to say that it is a particular type—

Mr. Leigh: I interrupt my hon. Friend again because I think I can help him overcome that problem. The officers of the Countryside Commission are listening to the debate. They are drawing up a code of practice which will be sent to every farmer in the country. Would it help my hon. Friend if I said that after the Bill becomes an Act we can do some work on the subject and make sure that clear guidance is given to farmers so that the problem is addressed?

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is going a long way towards meeting my objection, but if such guidance is to be drawn up, it should be made more widely available than just to farmers. As I told my hon. Friend on a previous occasion, difficulties have occurred not with the vast majority of farmers but with the few who are prepared to see highways, bridleways and paths misused and who in the past have not shown themselves to be particularly concerned with infringements of highways and byways. If such guidance is drawn up, it should be made available not only to every farmer but to the Ramblers Association for dissemination among its branches, to local botanical societies for dissemination among their members and to all organisations through which users of the countryside might have access to the information. By disseminating the information to farmers my hon. Friend is going some way to meeting the problem, but he should go further.

Mr. Leigh: I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of the Countryside Commission, but I undertake to convey my hon. Friend's fears to that body. I agree that if this important measure is to work, the widest possible


dissemination of the points in question should be made to all interested organisations. So I give my hon. Friend the undertaking he seeks.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Soames: I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will honour the undertaking that he has given. But in view of the extreme lack of credibility in the Countryside Commission among those who have knowledge of, or dealings with, the countryside, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the issue of what is the right body to produce the material for dissemination? By that means we shall ensure that its presentation is entirely honourable and factual.

Mr. Stern: I should be only too happy to accede to that request and to become involved in discussions of that nature with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. Given the good will that exists generally for the Bill among hon. Members in all parts of the House, I hope that such discussions could involve not just me but, for example, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, with his well-known concern for the ramblers' organisations, and other hon. Members who have expressed interest in the subject.
At present, there is a general understanding of what the Bill means by a "cereal", at least among farmers and their organisations. However, we are dealing with one of the fastest-changing sectors of agronomy in this country and in the western world. Therefore, I hope that in making the arrangements to provide regular information to farmers and other organisations about the definition of a cereal as it now appears in the Bill, the Countryside Commission and other organisations will undertake regularly to review the nature of their advice so that all new varieties of cereal are compared with similar grasses and there is no possibility of the position being changed by legislation or litigation in four or five years' time. By that time, as I am sure farmers present will agree, there may be an entirely different major cereal crop in this country.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will recall that, during his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) mentioned set-aside policies. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is pursuing an important point because the imperative of the set-aside policy may lead to the sort of circumstances that he mentioned. That makes it even more pressing for my hon. Friend the Minister to state at length how the Government intend to frame the legislation.

Mr. Stern: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point.
I accept the spirit of the amendment, but I remain concerned about the availability of information to enable the amendment to be enforced. I readily accept the undertaking of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to involve non-farming organisations as widely as possible in the drawing up of the definitions and their dissemination to make the clause enforceable.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I wish to make two or three points, and to raise a possible inconsistency, a possible difficulty and a matter brought to my attention by a group of constituents. I am a great supporter of the Bill and spoke in support of it on Second Reading. The Bill states that crops should not encroach on a highway to reduce its apparent width, which means that tall crops such as rape should be cut back by farmers should they grow over the right of way. That does not apply to grass, but, as we heard earlier, cereals are grasses and the amendment is designed to deal with that.
There is an inconsistency, because cereals will have to be cut back to provide a clear right of way, but not grass. A crop of grass such as cocksfoot has a growing habit similar to that of wheat or barley. It grows to much the same height and tends to hang over more than wheat and barley, yet the cereals will have to be cut back, but the cocksfoot will not.
I raise the second difficulty not to be nit-picking, but because it seems best to raise such points and receive an answer to them in this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, if, growing among a field of cocksfoot there are wild oats, are they defined as grass or cereal? I do not know. If the wild oats among the cocksfoot overhang the path, are they to be treated as grass or cereal?
My final point was raised with me by a group of constituents who enjoy walking in the country.

Mr. Leigh: We know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has professional expertise in this matter, and he makes a fair point. However, the basis of the Bill is compromise. It was agreed that the Bill would not apply to grasses used for silage or hay making. If we were to try to address the problem as my hon. Friend seeks, the agreement on which the Bill is based—we all know that private Bills go through with agreement—would have fallen down. My hon. Friend was making a fair point, but I hope that he will accept that we had to make a rough compromise, which is what we have done.

Mr. Summerson: I appreciate the work that my hon.Friend has done on the Bill, and I realise that it involves a delicate compromise between various groups of interests. In the light of what he has said, I am satisfied on that point.
A group of my constituents have raised an unusual point. They told me that, when they go for walks in the country, they actually enjoy finding difficulties and obstructions on the paths. They say that when they go for walks around the constituency and in towns and cities, everything is even and easily laid out for them, so they simply walk along the pavements, which is no challenge to them. When they get into the country, they enjoy it if they have some difficulty in getting from A to B, and have to clamber over a tree trunk that has fallen over the path. They say that they carry wire cutters and if they come to a strand of barbed wire they take the greatest pleasure in snipping it so that when they get home they feel that they have accomplished something. Therefore, it seems that the Bill, although welcome—

Mr. Leigh: I refer my hon. Friend to column 1181 of Hansard, 23 February 1990 where, on Second Reading I


referred to the very point he makes and mentioned the 1988 Countryside Commission survey, carried out by 1,000 volunteers. I said:
They discovered that on a typical two-mile walk along the 140,000 mile footpath network there was a two in three chance of meeting an obstacle … Impenetrable vegetation or hedges or fences across a footpath can be dealt with by existing legislation. The most important problem, which occurs repeatedly in the surveys, is the ploughing up and cropping of footpaths."—[Official Report, 23 February 1990; Vol. 47, c. 1181.]
They found that, contrary to what my hon. Friend says about some people liking to wade through knee or waist-high cereals, most people do not like doing so. The problem addressed by the Bill is the single greatest disincentive to the enjoyment of the 17 million people who wish to walk in the countryside every year.

Mr. Summerson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have raised with him the point that my constituents asked me to, he has given me an answer that I will happily relay to them. I am sure that what he says is right and the vast majority of people would much rather not meet with obstacles. I thank him for the fair-minded way in which he has answered my point.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Rights of way are notoriously complex and arouse strong emotions and argument. Even the botany underlying some of the issues is far from straightforward, as we have heard this morning. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that he has threaded his way through the complexities and produced legislation that commands almost universal assent.
More than 40 amendments were accepted in Committee. They were mostly technical amendments, clarifying the Bill's intention. Taken together, they demonstrate the almost overriding importance of ensuring that the Bill is practical, workable and immediately understandable. It was because the Highways Act 1980 was widely misunderstood, and landowners, local authorities and path users had difficulty in interpreting some of its provisions, that the need for this legislation became so apparent.
The failure to restore paths properly is probably the major cause of dispute and misunderstanding between landowners and path users. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) that a walk in the countryside should be something of an adventure, and perhaps our paths and rights of way should not always be clinical and straightforward. But I think that all hon. Members agree that blocked paths that are impossible to traverse are against everyone's interests. Not everyone is as athletic as my hon. Friend. We want the countryside to be enjoyed by all people, old or young, athletic or less so.
It is right that the Bill should not merely clarify the law but ensure that our marvellous network of footpaths—about 140,000 miles of them are kept open and, as far as possible, free of obstruction.
We have been lucky that the Bill received such detailed and expert scrutiny in another place. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Kimball, and perhaps it is also appropriate to remind the House of the important role played by the rights of way review committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst).
The Bill recognises that pasture land already provides a suitable surface for walking and riding. One of the pleasures of the countryside is walking through crops of grass—it is one of the reasons why people go into the country—but walking through cereal crops is a different matter. Riders' and walkers' confidence is diminished if they are faced with a field of oats or barley across which there is no visible path. That is why the Bill requires that such a path be kept clear of crops other than grass, and provides a definition of grass.
The Bill was drawn up as widely as possible to cover grass mixtures of a type commonly grown for pasture, silage or hay-making. Certainly, to the layman's eyes, that definition excludes cereals, which are not commonly grown as silage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) who as always, has done his homework, mentioned the possibility of different species of barley causing problems. I draw his attention to the fact that oats are not merely botanically, but are commonly considered to be, cereals and would therefore have to be removed under the provisions of the Bill. He also mentioned wild oats, which are not botanically classified as cereals. Page 5 of the Bill makes it clear that grass will be permitted on the footpath only if it is commonly used for pasture, silage or hay-making. Wild oats, which are chiefly a weed, would not fall into that definition, and would therefore require to be removed under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Stern: I am not sure that my hon. Friend understands the point that I was trying to make. I agree that wild oats are not classified as a cereal, and so I assume that, under the Bill, they will be treated not as a cereal but as a weed. My point was that, botanically, wild oats are so similar to oats treated as cereals that problems of description and identification could readily arise unless clear guidance were given to as many countryside users as possible.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Whether wild oats are classified as a cereal or as a weed is not important in practical terms, because under both definitions they will require removal.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West and for Gainsborough and Horncastle raised the question of guidance to educate the public about their rights under the Bill. I draw hon. Members' attention to the rights of way review committee's intention to draw up detailed notes for guidance, which will perhaps—it is up to the committee—go into the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. It is intended that those notes for guidance will be distributed to every farmer and local authority in England and Wales, and possibly more widely, through groups such as the Ramblers Association which are anxious to improve access to the countryside.
The explanatory and educative function of the rights of way review committee will help to remove any lingering uncertainties or scope for misinterpretations, as well as ensuring that the Bill is a success in practice as well as in theory.
The Bill represents a hard won and possibly unique consensus between users and landowners. Some disbelief was expressed in another place that the National Farmers Union had agreed to a rights of way Bill, but I confirm that it has done so, and that it has been extremely supportive throughout the passage of the legislation. Along with the


Ramblers Association, the British Horse Society, local authority associations and many other groups, the NFU hopes that the Bill will help to remove the uncertainties and misunderstandings that have bedevilled the issue in the past.

Mr. Soames: I must mention a serious matter which relates to the amendment and to the legislation which will flow from it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not surprising that the NFU should wish to co-operate because no one, least of all farmers, seeks to deny the public access to land? But access must be responsible access. What worry the farming and countryside communities are the dreadful abuses heaped upon the countryside by those who use it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend that rights carry obligations. I hope that the public will use the right of way network for recreation, but will understand that their rights carry duties and obligations to respect the countryside, to shut gates after them, not to throw litter down or to leave waste materials littering the countryside. I also agree with the idea behind my hon. Friend's intervention—that the rights of way network provides a marvellous means of reconciling potentially conflicting pressures. Of course there are difficulties—the public may interfere with farm practices—but the rights of way network provides a means of avoiding such conflicts.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that in such cases, when farmers and other landowners are able to get together with people who wish to use the countryside for recreation, they may be able to work out extensions to the footpath network which will be of great advantage to both sides?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is clearly acquainted with the system whereby permissive rights of way can be negotiated or granted by landowners, in addition to the traditional rights of way network. That is an encouraging way forward. I urge landowners and farmers to work where possible with local authorities and access organisations so that, where appropriate, they can extend the marvellous rights-of-way network which we already enjoy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle on piloting his Bill thus far. It is now at the last hurdle. It is called the Rights of Way Bill but I anticipate that the legislation will be known as the Leigh Act.

12 noon

Ms. Joan Walley: I shall be brief because the House wishes to attend to other important business. The Bill is as important as the Protection of Badger Setts Bill which we hope to reach later. The Opposition are as anxious as the Countryside Commission, the working party and the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to see the Bill on the statute book. However, we regret that the Government have not come forward with comprehensive proposals of the type that were set out in the last Conservative party manifesto. It was made clear in our debate on Wednesday that although such legislation might be near it is still some way off. We need

far-reaching and comprehensive legislation on the countryside which will incorporate the Bill and other measures about access.
The interests of path users are not always as well represented in the other place as they could be. The Second Reading debate showed that the Opposition were worried that the views of the land owning lobby and its nervousness about public rights of way were again about to make their influence felt. That view was expressed by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
I hope that the Bill will overcome its last hurdle. The strong support for the Bill from the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and ramblers has no doubt helped its progress. I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle but to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who played a large part in helping the Bill over its many hurdles. Even though the Bill has only two helpful amendments its progress thus far is a significant achievement.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle fully explained why it is important for the section of the Bill that deals with crops to be as clear as possible. I hope that subsequent discussions will clarify that matter and that the regulations and code of conduct will make such clarification widely available. Neither the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle nor the Minister mentioned the importance of the role of local authorities, in enforcing the new law. The Government must make sure that authorities have the modest resources that are needed to do that. This week discussions took place with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the standard spending assessments and the poll tax. Those matters will place intolerable burdens upon local authorities and we doubt whether the resources that they need will be available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that such matters do not arise from the Lords amendments.

Ms. Walley: Careful consideration of the Lords amendments shows that local authorities will have to make sure that the excellent measures in the amendments will work. However, those authorities have had curbs placed on their finances. Many make a valiant effort to enforce the law, but their achievements will be limited.
In areas where land-owning and farming interests dominate, local authorities could find a ready excuse for doing nothing and we want to avoid that. Walkers, riders and the voluntary groups to which they belong have an important role to play in encouraging farmers to comply with the new law as a matter of course. We are confident that the Ramblers Association and other such organisations will play that role.
New section 137A of the 1980 Act is one of the sections under which a prosecution can be brought by an individual or group or local authority. That is of great importance to such bodies, not only because of its provisions about crops but because it gives them the power to enforce the provisions and that is crucial. The clarification that is made by the two amendments and the closure of a potential loophole will be as welcome and useful to path


users as to local authorities and farmers. For that additional reason, we welcome the amendments and hope that the final hurdle can now be overcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

REGULATIONS

Lords amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
(1A) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I thank Lady Masham of Ilton for the eloquent way in which she steered the Bill through the other place. Lady Masham lost her ability to walk in a point-to-point accident 30 years ago and since then she has been confined to a wheelchair. She breeds beautiful highland ponies and runs a fine riding establishment. No one could be better equipped to understand the need for a Bill to protect the heads of young riders, too many of whom have been killed or maimed in appalling accidents. People of all ages have suffered from such accidents, but it is the young whom the Bill seeks to protect.
The three amendments introduced on my behalf by Lady Masham were accepted and do much to improve the Bill. The first amendment requires the Secretary of State for Transport to consult widely before making regulations to enforce the wearing of hard hats. Hon. Members will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) moved a similar amendment on Report on 27 April. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I assured him at that time that there was every intention to consult widely and that no such amendment was necessary. However, on reflection the Department of Transport felt that the amendment was necessary to ensure the commitment in the Bill and that the wording as printed was the most desirable.
It is more than possible that the Sikh community will want to be consulted about protective headgear for young Sikhs when riding. I do not have expert knowledge, but I accept that it is likely, indeed almost certain, that Sikh headgear is as strong as anything that we can provide. That is shown by the fact that such headgear is accepted as legitimate on building sites.
The Pony Club would naturally expect to be consulted as the organisation which represents children who ride and those who do not. I know that the Pony Club has great expertise and exercises care to ensure that children who ride are properly protected and ride in as safe a manner as can be achieved in a sport which is accepted by those of us who ride as the most dangerous in the world. It is certainly the most exhilarating and the most marvellous sport in the world. The Pony Club will have proposals to put forward, as I am sure will the British Horse Society which strongly supports the Bill. I am an elected member of the council of that society and for a long time worked with the society on the preparation of the Bill.
I was first elected to the council of the British Horse Society in 1973 on the nomination of the late Dorian Williams, who was a marvellous man, and Field Marshall Lord Gerald Templar, a great man who cleared Malaya of


Communists at a time of great difficulties. I sat on the council of the British Horse Society and have been regularly re-elected ever since. The last time that I was re-elected was a few days ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "hear hear".] I am grateful to my hon. Friends.
The British Standards Institution would also be an obvious body to consult. I hope that it will not too regularly introduce new standards. The British Standards Institution has achieved a good safety helmet for children in British Standard 4472 and a good riding hat 6473. I hope that those pieces of protective headgear if properly worn and done up in the correct manner will be satisfactory.
Every time that a parent, a child or anyone buys a new piece of headgear for riding, protective or otherwise, it is an expensive operation. It would not be right constantly to put individuals and parents to that expense. We always want the safest possible protective headgear for children and others but people should not be forced to buy new headgear too often.
It would be right for the Department of Transport to consult maintained schools and schools for disabled children where riding is on the curriculum. That is worth thinking about. I founded in 1964 an organisation called the London schools curriculum riding scheme, which enabled children in ordinary maintained schools and special schools for the disabled to ride. Every kind of disabled child, including autistic, delicate, physically disabled and mentally disabled children can ride into my scheme. Such children often have virtually nothing else in their lives and obtain such pleasure and joy from their riding that we should do nothing to make it more difficult for them to have that splendid games option.
My scheme applied to schools in inner London only. It was financed by the former London county council and the Inner London education authority—to their great credit in each case. The riding and any headgear had to be paid for out of public funds. Headgear had to be in accordance with British Standards Institution recommendations so that children were as protected as possible. I would expect the Department of Transport to consult maintained and independent schools, and certainly special schools.
There may be doubt in some hon. Members' minds about my scheme, under which hundreds of thousands of children in the city of London learned to ride. Many such children lived in high-rise flats where they had no other access to animals. They were not even allowed to keep mice, dogs or cats. The London borough of Lewisham, which has taken over control of education in the borough, confirmed this week that riding will continue at Sedgehill school where I was deputy headmaster for seven years and which I ran for a period. It is a large school of 2,000 pupils. The decision to allow riding to continue is most enlightened. The borough will also ensure that riding continues in special schools where it is already provided. It would be well to consult such boroughs. Westminster city council is making favourable noises about continuing my scheme, so there is every reason to consult schools which provide riding, including special schools.
There is no doubt that the widest possible consultation will be undertaken by the Department of Transport before

the Bill is enacted, I hope, in the autumn. Consultation is a prerequisite to the enforcement of the Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: When my hon. Friend first introduced his Bill I was not happy with the form that it took. However, he has made all sorts of alterations and it is now in a far more acceptable form. I wish him well with it.
The Bill will make it an offence for an adult capable of stopping a child from doing so, causing or permitting that child to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. I am sure that "adult", "capable" and "stopping" have all been defined, but if I, for example, saw a child without protective headgear on a horse, could it be said that I was capable of stopping that child riding?
We are dealing with children riding horses. I know that "horses" has been defined. I hope that it will not be taken as read that children will be allowed to ride foals, even with protective headgear. That would not be kind to the foal. After all, children vary in size, height and weight. It would be a shame to allow any child to ride a foal.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I can advise my hon. Friend that that important point will be covered on the second amendment. There was a long and good debate in another place on permitting a child to ride without wearing protective headgear. The adult who owns the horse or is in charge of the horse is required to use best endeavours to see that the child wears protective headgear on the road.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps I could make it clear, in case there is any misunderstanding, that, unlike in earlier debates on other Bills, we are required to take the three amendments separately. There will be separate debates.

Mr. Summerson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was about to say that I would not be capable of stopping a child on a horse because I am allergic to horses I can not go within half a mile of one without sneezing, so that might preclude me.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for answering that point. That was all I wanted to raise.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The amendment is important. When the Bill was first introduced it was not intended that formal consultation should go ahead. Everyone assumed that those affected would be consulted. It was wise of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister that consultation should be formalised.
I wish to make a few remarks about the nature of headgear which should be put firmly at the top of the agenda for consultation. I am the sponsor of another private Member's Bill that deals with safety—the Safety in Children's Playgrounds Bill. One of our problems is that it is not always entirely clear to local authorities which equipment is safe and which is not. They are not accustomed to the relevant British standards.
In pursuing the logic that I am seeking to set out and advance in my own Bill, I have sought to draw on my experience in buying car seats for my children. I have no knowledge of the construction of child seats and do not know what is safe and what is not. I recognise, however,


that if something complies with a standard of the British Standards Institution and carries the BSI's kite mark I can have confidence in the construction of the seat.
There is some confusion about what is safe headgear and what is not. British standard 6473 of 1984 relates to protective hats for horse and pony riders. Its predecessor was British standard 3686. The hats that come within the terms of that standard can still be worn, depending on their age and condition. There is also British standard 4472 of 1969, which relates to protective skull caps for jockeys. British standard 6863 sets out specifications for cycle helmets. Some parents will be confused and will not know whether they have to buy two different sorts of hat. Those who represent their views will want to be consulted. Users will want to know whether they must buy different types of hat. I am certain that all responsible parents would want to buy the right sort of hat for a child who engages in horse riding. They will want to know that the hat that they are buying is safe. It is easy to buy something in the belief that it is safe only to learn later that it is not. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give some assurances about safety and consultation.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is making an interesting contribution to the debate. It would be desirable, if it could be achieved, to have protective headgear for children that could be used for riding horses and ponies and for cycling. I think that jockeys' helmets that come within British standard 4472 would be safe for cyclists. I am not so sure that current cyclists' helmets would be safe for horse riders. I shall listen with interest to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use the opportunity that will be provided by consultation to put some pressure upon the British Standards Institution. In a market where sales will be relatively few and in which the profit for the institution in undertaking testing will be relatively small, there may be a reluctance to help companies move towards a position where they can use the kite mark. As I have said, I believe that the kite mark is essential in giving guidance to parents who are purchasing headgear for their children. It is vital that pressure is put on the institution. I hope that we shall have easily understood markings of the kite mark sort to guide parents.
It is important that we consult religious groups that may wish to have exemptions introduced. The Government have an excellent record of helping Sikhs to be exempt from certain requirements when their religion does not allow them to take the same safety measures as others. There was an enormous row over some years about motor cycle helmets and Sikhs. In the end, the Government wisely agreed that Sikhs would not be obliged to comply with that requirement.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision to give way on that issue was admired and agreed with by very many people? Does my hon. Friend agree that Sikhs had a fearsome and immensely courageous reputation during the second world war'? They never went into battle with any form of head gear apart from their turbans and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see any connection between the hon. Gentleman's intervention and the Lords amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I shall respond to only part of my hon. Friend's intervention. He has made the valid point that the campaign which the Sikhs mounted and their bravery shows that they put their religion much higher than their personal safety.
The Government have acted once again on behalf of Sikh believers in respect of regulations for the wearing of hard hats on building sites. In the past few months they have changed the regulations while being mindful of the spin-off from that decision in terms of safety and insurance. Again, the Government acted extremely courageously and wisely in helping Sikhs, many of whom work on building sites, to be exempt from the regulations. I attended an enormous meeting in a temple at Southall and it was clear that those present were extremely grateful to the Government for what they had done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is my parliamentary neighbour, may be able to tell us how popular horse riding is among Sikh children. I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. John McWilliam: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman was not listening when the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) introduced the amendment. He referred to Sikh children riding horses, Sikh headgear on building sites and Sikh headgear generally for horse riding. It seems that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is deliberately wasting the time of the House on a day when there are many other important Bills to consider. The hon. Member for Ealing, North has more than adequately dealt with the issue which he has raised.

Mr. Hughes: I have a long record of speaking on these issues. I was one of those who led the campaign to persuade the Government to exempt Sikhs from wearing hard hats on building sites. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman ever saying anything about that subject. I do not know whether he has any Sikh believers in his constituency. I have a right to talk about these matters and to amplify the important issues about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North spoke.
Consultation is important and it will be regarded as especially important by Sikhs who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and myself. I believe that a compromise can be arrived at that will not offend their religion or frustrate our important aim of seeking to protect children.
This is an important amendment to an important Bill. We must get things right. It is important that within the consultative framework it should be understood that we have the protection of our children in mind. That consideration must be put above all else. In doing so, we shall be doing an enormous amount within a relatively select area to improve the safety of our children. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North on the amendment.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I rise to speak briefly in support of this eminently sensible amendment. I am concerned that the House spends so much time nannying people. The Bill is an example of nannyism gone mad. More people have accidents because of slipping in the bath


than falling off horses. Do we propose to introduce a Bill at some stage to advocate that people should wear helmets when they take a bath? Slipping in a hard iron bath and cracking one's head is a very dangerous thing to do—surely the state should take a line on that. In doing so, why not consult the representatives of all the organisations involved in the bathing business or those who take baths? I can think of an endless series of people to consult—we might even set up some little quangos for consultations and to investigate the accident levels.
I feel strongly that, before bringing forward this type of legislation, we should stop and think about the basic tenets of this Conservative Government which, historically, are different from those of other Conservative or Socialist Administrations because we eschew the nonsense of the nanny state and regulation for the sake of regulation.
I frequently visit Portugal on holiday where workmen work on scaffolding without wearing helmets. To the best of my knowledge, the accident rate there for serious head injuries is not any worse than that in this country. When we get round to trying to dictate to parents what their children should wear when they go for a trot on their ponies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Lady is reading the same amendment that I am reading, which refers to the need to consult representative organisations before the making of regulations. The hon. Lady is a long way from that.

Mrs. Gorman: I believe that I am getting to the point which, in my view, is that the only representatives who should be consulted on such an issue are the parents of the children who will go horse riding. It is time that we left such decisions to the family concerned when it decides whether their children should take a ride on a horse.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I hope that my hon. Friend will concede that I am as firm a defender of freedom as she is. However, we are talking about a Bill which would apply only to under-14-year-olds. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we have changed the provisions from applying to people of all ages. If my hon. Friend had seen the many children I have seen who have been maimed for life, shattered or even killed by falling from a horse on to a road and the distress that that has caused, I am sure that she would accept that the Bill is reasonable. In any case, 80 per cent. of children under 14 already wear protective headgear.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I am pleased to learn that most parents with children who go horse riding have apparently made that decision for themselves. I am concerned that we are seeking to make an offence of something that should be the choice of the individual concerned. A basic principle is at stake—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is now far wider than the scope of the amendments. I hope that we can return to amendment No. 1, which refers to the need to consult representative organisations prior to the Secretary of State making regulations. I have heard little about that so far from the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Gorman: Thank you for drawing my attention to that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My point is that the only people concerned with making such a decision should be the families of the children who will go out on a horse. Other organisations, including the medical profession, may have a variety of opinions, but that point is secondary to the basic issue which is that the state should leave people to make such decisions for themselves. We in the House of Commons should not be wasting all this time on such material.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): I am delighted to be at the Dispatch Box for the second time this morning and, in doing so, to join my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in recognising the importance of his Bill, and of the Lords amendments. If I may—[Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has rejoined us. I know that he believes this issue to be as important as do my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and others.
I should like to explain in a little more detail what the consultation will cover since I have been asked so to do. The regulations will cover any exemptions from the requirement to wear protective headgear on religious grounds or for medical reasons or in particular circumstances. I shall be consulting both religious groups, especially the Sikhs who have already been mentioned, and medical organisations. I shall also be consulting the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Masters of Foxhounds Associations, plus various horse organisations, such as the British Horse Society which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has said, have been following the passage of the Bill with interest—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if my hon. Friends could pay a little attention.
The regulations will also contain the required standard or standards of the hat to be worn and the manner in which it should be worn. At present there are two types of suitable protective hats conforming to British standard 6473: 1984 "Protective Hats for Horse and Pony Riders", the predecessor of which, BS 3686 is still worn and will be considered depending on age and condition, and BS 4472, which relates to protective skull caps for jockeys. These hats are already compulsory for jockeys under Jockey Club rules at its race meetings and at competitions and events organised by the Pony Club.
I shall have to decide whether any other hats are as safe as these, such as the pedal cycle helmet, BS 6863. The reason I would wish to consult on whether to include cycle helmets is that they appear to provide the same amount of protection, if not more than—for the side of the head, for example—as horse rider helmets. We are trying to encourage more children to wear cycle helmets. It would be unreasonable to expect parents to buy both a riding and a cycle helmet for their child if one hat would provide sufficient protection for both.
When the amendment was introduced in the other place Lord Monson said that it implied that consultation would be only with organisations, not individuals. I assure any hon. Members with similar fears that the consultation process will be the standard one, whereby a press release is made by the Department of Transport. Any member of the public will be able to telephone the Department and obtain a copy of the consultation document. Their ideas will be given all consideration.
I shall also consult individual doctors who have experience of dealing with head injuries arising from riding accidents. Lord Monson was also concerned that a publicity campaign would be needed. He suggested that, arguably, a publicity campaign would have been better than the Bill. The publicity that will surround the consultation period will be just part of the publicity; there will be additional publicity when the regulations are made. Part of the campaign will be to encourage those over 14 to wear protective headgear, and not just on the road. Part of the campaign will be to encourage pedal cyclists to wear protective helmets.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The initial controversy that surrounded the Bill, because it applied to adults as well as to young people, has given my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) the publicity that he sought. I, too, am a member of the British Horse Society. I shall welcome the opportunity to discuss with interested parties, particularly the armed forces and those who enjoy riding and hacking, how important it is that the legislation should apply to young people rather than to adults. My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that there is a royal component to the consultations. Certain notables have avoided wearing protective headgear. That might have caused some difficulty. However, because of the way that the Bill is now drafted—on the principle that the way that the twig bends the tree will grow—I join in contratulating my hon. Friend on the way that he has carried out his consultations and on the fact that the Bill is now in a form that is truly acceptable to all.

Mr. Atkins: I am delighted, as ever, that my hon. Friend is pleased by what I have said.
I said earlier that I wanted to spare parents the double expense of buying a riding hat and a cycle helmet if one would so the same job. Some hon. Members may know that the use of cycle helmets is limited and therefore might think that it is unnecessary and a waste of time to worry about whether one helmet be substituted for the other. However, I shall be launching a campaign next spring to make all parents fully aware of the benefits of cycle helmets. That matter will be raised then.
I find it extraordinary to see some cycle racing competitors riding without helmets and some wearing helmets which appear not to conform to any recognised approved safety standard. The message to young cyclists is very poor and may explain why they are often reluctant to wear helmets which they think might make them look foolish. However, as my right hon. and noble Friend, Viscount Davidson said in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, it is paradoxical that we can bring forward a measure such as this only when there is already general acceptance of its great benefits.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend suggests that at the end of the consultation period cycle helmets might be thought to be suitable and could be used to meet the objectives of the Bill. However, he also said that cycle helmets do not conform to the necessary safety standards. Does not that undermine my hon. Friend's Bill? The Minister suggests that he wants to save parents the expense of two helmets if their child is both a cycle rider and a horse rider, but, as he has just said that

he is not satisfied about the safety standards of some cycle helmets, how does he reconcile those apparently different objectives?

Mr. Atkins: As ever, I enjoy my hon. Friend's interventions as he poses questions and then answers them. None the less he makes a valid point. There is some interest and concern in the quality of cycle helmets and the need to ensure that children understand the importance of wearing them. We must be absolutely certain that they do the job for which they are required. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) have said, a helmet that did both jobs would make a great difference to some parents for whom the cost of two helmets might be unnecessary and difficult.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Let me take my hon. Friend back a couple of sentences to his remarks about racing cyclists. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is wrong because with such examples being given to children, and without the wearing of helmets being compulsory, parents will spend whatever money is necessary to make sure that children have the helmets, but children will not wear them because they are not fashionable. I used to ride horses and when I was 16 and rode a motor scooter, it was fashionable to have a helmet but not to wear it. We want the children to wear the helmets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Will the Minister bear in mind that we are dealing with consultation with representative organisations? I am sure that he will bring his remarks within that context.

Mr. Atkins: Of course I shall do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but obviously I shall try to answer the points that have been raised. As one who has a daughter who rides and a son who cycles, I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made. I shall endeavour to ensure that the consultation that I undertake will deal with all those matters. In the circumstances, I have dealt with those concerns as briefly as possible. I have deleted several comments that I had hoped to make to ensure that we make progress.

Mr. William Cash: I was engaged in some discussion with the promoter of the Bill at an early stage in its proceedings. I welcome the practical way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has approached the Bill and congratulate him on a Bill that will do a great deal of good. I also welcome the consultation to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for the acceptance and congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I now hope that we can move on to the other amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

INTERPRETATION

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 16, leave out from "includes" to end of line 17 and insert
pony, mule, donkey or other equine animal".

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I know that other people want to get in, so I shall endeavour to present these points properly yet as quickly as possible.
The amendment was proposed in a spirit of compromise by Lady Masham on my behalf to give a clear definition of horse, and to include ponies and donkeys which are often ridden by children. Mules are not ridden as often as they were 100 years ago, but they might become fashionable again. The words, "other equine animal" include all the other animals which were in the original definition: mare, gelding, foal, colt, filly, stallion, ass and hinny.
I have been asked to mention three fairly unusual equines because, people being what the are, we may find children riding such equines on the road.
Some years ago I was riding a rig and was disturbed by its extraordinary behaviour.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Perhaps it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could say what a rig is.

Mr. Greenway: The Oxford dictionary defines a rig as
an animal which has been imperfectly castrated (or spayed), or whose genital organs are not properly developed; especially a male animal (ram, bull or horse) with only one testicle".
A rig can be exceedingly dangerous, in that it can have its mind on a mare on heat. If there is a rider in the saddle he may be put in great danger, such as I have experienced. I have been bucked higher in the air by a rig than by any other equine. No equine can stand as vertically as a rig can, and the rider is often in danger of falling over backwards with the rig on top of him.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes a good point about rigs. They can be dangerous. A year ago, my sister-in-law bought a children's pony which, she left in a field with a rig. When the pony was taken back to Norfolk, she discovered it to be in foal. That is how dangerous rigs are.

Mr. Greenway: I am sad to hear of my hon. Friend's experience. I hope that the foal was acceptable—

Mr. Soames: It is a sweetheart.

Mr. Greenway: At least that outcome was useful, but terrible things can happen.
In another place, there was much debate about zebras. As children may find zebras attractive and they are sometimes ridden, they should be dealt with, too. There are many things that not all hon. Members know about zebras. They are definitely members of the horse family, as are asses, so they are covered by the Bill. Biologically, a zebra is closer to a horse than is an ass; although it is difficult to break in and train them for riding, it has been done. I understand that in the 19th century a member of the House of Lords was in the habit of driving a four-in-hand in which the horses were replaced by zebras. Between the wars, some intrepid white settlers in the Happy valley of Kenya occasionally rode zebras. I do not know whether they stayed on for long—zebras do not like having riders on their backs.

Mr. Soames: I can confirm that. A distant cousin of mine, Jack Soames, used to ride zebras regularly in the Happy valley.
Although this discussion about zebras is important, I urge my hon. Friend, given his important position in the horse world—he does an enormous amount in the House in that connection—to counsel people strongly against riding them: they are extremely tricky and disagreeable animals. I was told by a white hunter in Kenya that in Africa more people are killed by zebras each year than are killed by lions.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has regaled the House with some fascinating and important information. Few people stay on a zebra, but I am not surprised that his uncle did so, given the wonderful stock from which my hon. Friend comes, nothing would surprise me. I am grateful for his important contribution.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend clarify that the Bill will affect camels, which are ridden by children at zoos? I understand, as we have strayed into the wilds of Africa, that wildebeest are sometimes mounted by British children in Happy valley, or anywhere else.

Mr. Greenway: Camels and wildebeest are not in the horse family; the Bill deals with equines. Some perverted people ride rams or tups and other animals they should not ride, but that is outside the scope of the Bill so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not dealing with it.
Zebras can be crossed with horses and asses and the resulting hybrids are easier to break in and train than zebras. That possibility is covered. Huxley, writing in 1862, said:
It is a very rare thing to see a Hinny in this country
However, I have occasionally seen one. Given how things have changed in the past 128 years, the conclusion must be that there are many more zebras in Britain than hinnies, so if such improbable and unlikely mounts as foals and hinnies are to be covered by the Bill, it is right that zebras should be.
It would be wicked if anyone rode a foal because it would damage the young equine and could have serious repercussions for the rider. The amendment will cover that possibility. The new definition is simpler but more comprehensive than the former one, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am unhappy about the inclusion of the word "donkey" in the Lords amendment.
I have the honour and privilege to represent the seaside resort of Cleethorpes. For most hon. Members, the word "Cleethorpes" conjures up visions of seaside, donkey rides and the promenade. One of the greatest pleasures for young people of visiting Cleethorpes is the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of normal seaside pleasures. Donkey rides have been a traditional seaside pleasure at Cleethorpes and at other seaside resorts in the north, such as Skegness and Blackpool for a long time.

Mr. Harry Greenway: A donkey is not referred to as an equine, although it is within the equine family. Most often, donkeys are ridden on beaches, so there would be no danger in children riding them. I caution that donkeys are incredibly dangerous to ride and I have seen them unseat the best jockeys without difficulty.

Mr. Brown: I know quite a lot about the donkeys at Cleethorpes. Two years ago, the mayor of Cleethorpes, Mrs. Gladys Nuttall—

Mr. Atkins: The mare?

Mr. Brown: No, the mayor. Mrs. Nuttall had a distinguished career. She and her family ran the donkey rides at Cleethorpes for many years. She and I are worried that because the donkeys set off from the promenade they may be within the scope of the Bill. Horses that are owned by riding stables, ridden by children under 14 and which go on to a public highway, as well as donkeys that go on to promenades before they get to the beach, would fall within the scope of the Bill. It would therefore be necessary for Councillor Mrs. Nuttall and her family to provide children under 14 with hard hats.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend raises an important point about his constituency. I am familiar with the donkeys there. They are a fine breed.
My hon. Friend should not ignore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Donkeys are absolute brutes. Some two years ago, I suffered a terrible fall from a donkey when riding in a donkey derby at a village fete. The donkey was completely unscathed but I was quite badly injured.

Mr. Brown: I am distressed to hear that, but my hon. Friend is overreacting slightly. I take the point that donkeys can be bad tempered. I know the donkeys at Cleethorpes better than anyone else, and have always found them more agreeable than the average donkey. The issue is the danger that donkeys pose to children under 14 and whether they should therefore come within the scope of the Bill.
Between February and June 1988—covering half the summer period—out of a sample of 500 horse-related accidents, five resulted from fall from a donkey, three of them involving children under 14 and one involving a three-year-old, who cut his head. We should set the danger posed by my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) into perspective. if the Lords amendment is accepted, donkeys will be within the scope of the Bill, yet only three out of 500 horse-related accidents involved children under 14.
Seaside resorts, especially the traditional type, are going through a difficult time. Providers of donkey rides in constituencies such as mine do not have an easy time. They have to work hard over long hours, especially during the summer season, to make ends meet. If they have to provide hard hats for potential customers, charges may increase. In Cleethorpes, by necessity, a great deal of the seaside leisure activity, including donkey rides, must take place as much on the promenade as on the beach. There is pressure on seaside resorts not to allow animals to go on to the beach —some people complain that dogs and other animals put dirt on it. If pressure continues o remove animals from the sand, the promenade will be used more for donkey rides at seaside resorts. That will inevitably bring providers of donkey rides within the scope of the Bill. Let us remember that donkey rides are an inexpensive form of entertainment and leisure for the children of not-so-well-off families. I fear that charges for donkey rides would be bound to increase.

1 pm

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend is referring to the possibility that people hiring out donkeys will have to provide at the same time helmets for riders because of the small chance, less than 1 per cent., of an accident occurring. Has my hon. Friend considered the question of

cross-infection as a result of helmets being passed from one wearer to another? There has been a great increase in the incidence of head lice infection in society, particularly in schools. Unless the helmets about which my hon. Friend is speaking can be sterilised between use, cross-infection could present a great danger.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are dealing with the definition of a horse.

Mr. Brown: I see the relevance of my hon. Friend's intervention, but I must abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. She is suggesting that if a donkey is defined as a horse, the donkeys of Cleethorpes will come within the scope of the Bill and the providers of donkey rides there, Councillor Mrs. Nuttall and her family, will have to go to the expense of providing a dozen or 20 helmets, which during the day will be passed from one child to another.
I will not detain the House longer. While I do not oppose the Lords amendment, I urge the Minister to appreciate the concern that has been expressed by the providers of donkey rides at seaside resorts such as Cleethorpes.

Mr. Atkins: We have had an important discussion—including a humorous discussion, as I would have expected from the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—about the definition of a horse. Hon. Members have dealt with the issue in some detail and have been specific in their remarks.
The matter was referred to by Lord Stoddart in Committee in another place on 20 June, having also been mentioned by parliamentary counsel when the Bill was being redrafted in the spring. Hon. Members who attended the Committee on 4 April or who read the Official Report of those proceedings will recall that the definition was already in some difficulty at that stage.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) moved an amendment to include rig in the definition. My hon. Friends the Members for Crawley and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) defined a rig, but I have a further definition from the "Encyclopaedia of Flat Racing" by Howard Wright:
a rig is a horse who has one testicle which has not descended into the scrotum: more rare is the example in which neither testicle has descended. The condition may be inherited and is likely to cause aggressive behaviour unless treated by castration.
That sums up the situation. Such an animal is an equine animal, and whether or not it was clear that it was covered in the former definition, it is certainly covered in the present one.
Of the 17 unsuccessful amendments that were tabled in another place, five were concerned with the definition of a horse or size of horse to be covered by the Bill. In Committee on 20 June, there were amendments to limit the scope of the Bill to horses over nine hands—in other words, to exclude Shetland ponies, foals, asses, mule and hinny. Lord Stoddart argued that a fall from a small animal would not be as dangerous as a fall from a large one. He also suggested that to ride a foal would damage the animal in a critical stage of its life.
Lord Monson moved an amendment on report to restrict the Bill to riding foals over five months. One reason for changing the definition was to remove the word "foal" from the face of the Bill without removing protection to children riding them.
The definition of a foal is a loose one. The "Oxford English Dictionary" states that it is:
the young of the equine genus of quadrupeds; properly one of the male sex, a colt; but also used where the sex is not specified, a colt or a filly.
Under the definition of "colt" it states:
while the young of the horse is still with the dam it is usually called a foal.
No one wants to suggest that a child or anyone should be encouraged to ride such an animal. That is why it no longer appears on the face of the Bill. However, if a child were to ride such an animal it should be protected from injury and by the use of the words "or other equine animal" such protection is guaranteed. The phrase, "ass, mule or hinny" is now coverd by "mule" and "donkey".
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred to the problems of the Cleethorpes sands. Exemptions can probably be made for donkey rides and I shall endeavour to see during the consultation period whether that is necessary. That is an important point which I expected him to raise on behalf of his constituents.
Another reason for choosing that definition of horse was that it covered every member of the horse family, whether or not it had been thought of. Lady Nicol asked whether "jennet" was covered. It is a small Spanish horse and so is covered. She used the term as an alternative to "hinny", sometimes called a "jenny". All are covered. I am astonished that there are so many names for horses, not being a horse rider myself—

Mr. Don Dixon: It is a Geordie expression.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman tells me it is a Geordie expression. It is a delightful one.
The fifth amendment, in another place, to deal with the definition, had the most effect on changing the legislation, apart from the concern over foals. Lord Monson wanted to include zebras in the list. He admitted that it was difficult to break in and train zebras for riding, but he referred to a 19th century member of the other place who was in the habit of driving a four-in-hand in which zebras were substituted for horses. He also mentioned settlers in Happy valley in Kenya who occasionally rode zebras. I do not know which of the three species of zebra they were —Burchell's zebra or bonte quagga, Grevy's zebra or the Mountain zebra—but all three will now be covered in the unlikely event that they are ridden.
Lord Monson also mentioned that zebras can be crossed with horses and asses. I do not know what such crossbreeds are called, and I await the answer of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. It is a pity that he is not here. I do not know what sort of animals could be crossed thanks to the wonders of modern genetic engineering. However, if they are members of the family Equidae they will be covered by the Bill under the new amendment, and children under the age of 14 will not be allowed to ride them without the appropriate protective headgear correctly worn.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am unhappy about the clause, but not the Bill, on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for getting it this far. I am certain that it will be passed, and it will have my vote.
The amendment is too narrow and relates to a world that has gone. I take up the Minister's point about genetic engineering. It would be a stronger amendment if "equine" was not included, and it simply read:
leave out from 'includes' to end of line 17 and insert 'pony, mule, donkey or other animal'.
As the Minister said, new amimals are not being created. The range of members of the equine family referred to today, and the various crosses which can occur, are undoubtedly covered by the clause. However, during the past 10 years we have seen, at Cambridge university, the creation of a new animal, the geep—a cross between a sheep and goat. There has been the insertion of a rat gene into a mouse to create a supermouse of enormous size. My worry is that before the end of the Act's lifetime—I assume that it will be on the statute book for decades to come —we shall be living in a world where completely new forms of animal have been created. It would be much better if the amendment did not contain the word "equine" but allowed for developments that will take place arising from future genetic engineering so that any animal created in a laboratory that becomes part of circus or holiday entertainment would automatically be covered.
We are dealing with size. The problem arises when anybody falls from a great height.
One reason why we have evolved to an average height of about 5ft 10 in for a man and a couple of inches smaller for a woman, but have not evolved beyond that, is that if large numbers of people were 7 or 8 ft tall, falling over would carry a high risk of injury or death. Putting people of any age on the back of an animal immediately creates a similar problem.
I vote for the amendment with reluctance because it is flawed by being so restrictive. I hope that the Government will continue to consider the problem in case there is a tremendous increase in genetically engineered animals. Given the billions of pounds being invested in genetic engineering by multinational corporations, before the century is out we are likely to have peculiar new animals created specifically for profit. Clearly young children are likely to be drawn along to see interesting, exotic beasts.

Mrs. Gorman: Given the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of genetic engineering, does he know of any experiments to cross newts with frogs? We might get nogs or fewts.

Mr. Livingstone: I detect an element of humour in that intervention, but there is a giant salamander which is 6 ft long and if people were to ride it there would be a serious risk of injury if they fell off. The animal is very rare and is found only in the colder parts of China, Manchuria and Japan, and fortunately it would be far too expensive to ue it for rides. However, the gene which controls size in the giant salamander could be inserted into another animal —that is the world that we now live in.
The Government should keep the issue under the most vigorous scrutiny so that the intention of the Bill is not flouted by genetic engineers and crafty people who would no doubt earn vast sums of money if they got young children to ride on exotic new animals. It is not merely a case of existing species of cross-breed; genetic engineering would give us the opportunity to recreate extinct animals if their bones are preserved. For example, the quagga, a member of the equine family, could be recreated by inserting its genetic material into the ovum of a horse or zebra, and I am certain that something of the sort will happen in the next 10 years. The quagga would be covered


by the Bill, but a completely new form of animal, which was not in the equine family, would not. I hope that the Government will keep the issue under consideration in the years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 27 and insert—
"road" does not include a footpath or bridleway but, subject to that, has

(a) in England and Wales the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and
(b) in Scotland the meaning given by section 151(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

(2) For the purposes of the definition of "road" in subsection (1) above—

(a) "footpath" means a way—

(i) over which the public have a right of way or, in Scotland, of passage on foot only; and
(ii) which is not associated with a carriageway; and

(b) "bridleway" means a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way: a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way."

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment restricts the scope of the Bill to the road, excluding bridleways and footpaths. On Report on 27 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) moved amendments which were intended to restrict the scope of the Bill in such a way. I agree that the worst injuries to a hatless child falling off a horse would occur on the road. Therefore it was important to make it crystal clear where the wearing of a hat was most important. I agreed to the amendments which were duly passed by the House then.
Unfortunately, my advisers in the Department of Transport realised that the wording was not ideal to achieve what the House had agreed upon. This amendment was drafted by Parliamentary Counsel to meet our desire and was duly passed in another place. It is intended to restrict the scope of the Bill to roads where there is a risk of collision between vehicles and horse riders. That is why bridleways and footpaths are excluded. However, it will be illegal for children to ride horses on the footpath alongside a road without protective headgear. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mr. Atkins: I have been endeavouring to react to the will of the House by speaking briefly. This is a neat compromise, and who am I to argue with Parliamentary Counsel? I am delighted that the amendment has found acceptance in another place and I hope that it will find it here.

Question put and agreed to.

Sexual Offences Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11 May],—That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: The period since we last discussed the Bill has allowed some debate in the media, not all of which was useful or well informed. It has also allowed a considerable amount of correspondence which I and, I am sure, other hon. Members have received. I should like to tell the House about some of the objections and letters of support that I have received and draw attention to some press coverage.
I am sure that many hon. Members who wished initially to support the legislation might change their minds in the light of the information that has come to me. In the earlier debate, as we worked our way through the amendments, the Minister of State, Home Office, who I am glad to see in his place, made several offers in an attempt to win support for the legislation. Time and again he asked hon. Members for examples of where the existing legislation, which the Bill seeks to amend, has resulted in mistaken convictions.
As a result of the publicity arising from my intervention in the earlier debate, three men contacted me—one by phone and two by letter. They said that even under the existing legislation, which restricts the use of the word "persistent", they had been wrongly convicted. Some hon. Members may say that those men are clearly guilty and just protesting their innocence, and that we should not pay too much attention to them.
The people who wrote to me did so in interesting circumstances. The press coverage that followed our previous debate on the subject made it seem that the Bill was dead for ever and a day. Therefore, the people who wrote to me did so in the expectation that the Bill would not come back for further debate and that the matter was effectively closed. For that reason they were able to be particularly honest in writing letters of support, or objecting to the action that I had taken. They assumed that what they said would not influence what would happen in future.
We should pay some attention to the proposals of the three men who contacted me. The existing legislation leads to wrongful convictions, which are extremely damaging to the reputations of the people concerned. As the Bill seeks to remove the word "persistent", which will lead to an increase in convictions—if we are to believe the speeches of the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton), who has put that forward as the reason for proceeding with the Bill —it follows that there will be an increase in the number of wrongful convictions.
I shall not give the names of the people concerned because if I did so reporters from The Sun and the Daily Express would be on their doorstep before the hour was out. However, I would be quite happy to give the letters to the hon. Member for Streatham or to pass them to the Home Office. I may do that in any case to find out whether these people have been wrongly convicted and whether the stain with which they live can be removed.
I do not want to detain the House for longer than necessary, and for that reason I shall deal with only one of the three people who contacted me. I have selected a letter at random. It states:
Dear Mr. Livingstone, Your speech during the debate on the report stage of the Sexual Offences Bill earned my full support and gratitude, in that I was recently the subject of a wholly unwarranted police prosecution for the offence of kerb-crawling. Without being cautioned, let alone arrested, I received a summons to appear in court to be bound over to keep the peace. My solicitor"—
I shall not give the name—
then furnished evidence to the police, with the altogether legitimate reason for my being in that place at that time. The hearing has now been postponed till October. In my opinion, it should never have been instigated in the first place. The fact that it is possible to be stopped and arbitrarily summonsed without any kind of preamble seems like a flagrant violation of the individual's rights and to have really frightening implications. I much appreciated the stand you took against the Sexual Offences Bill. I intend to fight this already oppressive regime where it affects me directly, but if there is any way in which I can assist you in your parliamentary battle, I will be very pleased to make my contribution.
If that has already happened, the House should have cause for concern. Here we have a case where someone received a summons out of the blue. He was not stopped by the police or cautioned. He could not say there and then what he was doing in the area. I find that extremely disturbing.
We are all aware that it would be impossible to extend the Bill to Scotland. It would be completely out of line with Scottish law and legal precedent. That is true of almost every other western European nation which has a Bill of Rights or written constitution.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to find a proper balance between the liberties of the innocent citizen and the need to protect women against harassment. But if he feels that the Bill is at fault on that count and criticises it, he should suggest what might be done to put the Bill right.

Mr. Livingstone: I am perfectly prepared to do that. I shall rearrange my notes and come to that point immediately, if it helps the hon. Member.
The House knows that I am not a lawyer. Often the law and the language of the law mean different things to lay persons and lawyers. Perhaps my argument will carry more weight if I draw the attention of the House to page 659 of the New Law Journal issued on Friday 11 May this year. It devoted an article to the legal consequences of the Bill. Interestingly, rather than saying what is wrong with the legislation, it takes up the point that the hon. Gentleman made. It points to where we could tackle the problem under the existing powers, if the Government have the political will to do so and if they make the resources available.
The article shows what lawyers think of the legislation and makes positive proposals for an immediate assault on the problem in the areas affected. It is headed "Guilty until proven innocent" and it says:
Kerb-crawling legislation extends to men some of the biases the prostitution laws inflict on women. In the same way as police evidence alone is enough to convict women of loitering and soliciting, it is enough to convict men of kerb-crawling. The need for corroboration is purposely left out of the law on the grounds that witnesses would be reluctant to give evidence. Giving evidence is always hard, but it is crucial to establish the truth and protect the rights of defendants. The red-light residents in whose name loitering, soliciting and kerb-crawling legislation were introduced have never had to substantiate their allegations.
The prostitution laws create the much vilified red-light areas by making it almost impossible for prostitute women

and clients to contact each other without breaking the law. Abolition of these laws would allow women to work from premises and advertise in contact magazines without being charged with brothel-keeping, thus undermining the need for red light areas.
That was the first positive proposal.
All the letters that I have received on the matter are from people who live in red-light areas. It is also noticeable that all the hon. Members who have been active in the debate and who have supported the hon. Member for Streatham represent areas or constituencies adjacent to areas where a red-light district makes life intolerable for residents.
The proposal in the New Law Journal is relevant and something which the Government could push through the legislative process with the overwhelming support of both sides of both Houses of Parliament. It would remove the prostitution laws. It would decriminalise prostitution so that women could work from home. There would be greater safety for the women and entire areas would not be blighted. The law would withdraw from an area which involves, as I suspect many police officers would say in private, victimless crime. When police resources are directed to victimless crime they are removed, of course, from crimes where there are victims.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to have a legalised brothel in his constituency? How would he propose to compensate house owners who happen to live next door to a woman who is operating as a professional prostitute?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Question before the House is whether the Bill should be given a Third Reading, and a Third Reading debate must relate to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Livingstone: I am caught, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the narrow remit of the debate. At the same time, Conservative Members want me to set out the options.
I have represented areas in which there have been red-light districts. Those areas would be affected and would come within the terms of the Bill. From 1977 to 1981 I was a member of the Greater London council. I represented Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, which had a red-light area round Finsbury park. It is the sort of area at which the Bill is aimed directly. I spent a considerable amount of time negotiating with local residents. At that time the idea of legislation to stop kerb crawling was seven or eight years away. It had not been thought of and consequently it was not being promoted. I had to respond to tremendous pressure from residents whose lives were intolerable. The most appallingly offensive comments were being made by kerb crawlers as they drove round the red light area of Finsbury park. Working under what was then a Conservative administration—I was an opposition member of the GLC under Sir Horace Cutler—we devised a road scheme which meant that someone required an honours degree from Oxford to be able to drive through the areas and find his way out. That provided some limited relief.
In proposing that the Bill should be enacted, the hon. Member for Streatham said that schemes of the sort to which I have just referred have not worked. He argued that they merely move the problem to another area. The hon. Gentleman is seeking a blanket power that could be used throughout the country and would enable the kerb crawler to be targeted. As I said, the people of Hackney, North


and Stoke Newington have been subjected to incredibly offensive experiences by kerb crawlers. They feel that the House should find a way to end the problem.
It is argued in the New Law Journal—there is specific reference to the Bill—that we shall create a power so wide and so sweeping that far too many genuinely innocent people will be caught by the Bill if it is enacted. Innocent people will be destroyed by it. They will be unable to recover and to live a normal life. The article states:
The Government has done the opposite"—
that is to decriminalise prostitution—
It is backing Sir William Shelton's Sexual Offences Bill now going through Parliament which seeks to tighten kerb-crawling legislation by further increasing police powers. The Bill proposes to remove from the 1985 Act the only legal constraint against false arrest: that kerb-crawling should be 'persistent or likely to cause annoyance or nuisance'.
That is the heart of the Bill.
The article continues:
The case of the Guildford Four and of Hassan Khan (a black man whose conviction was quashed following the disbanding of the West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad) have shown the dangers of convictions that are based solely on the word of the police. They are also an indication that the police are more likely to use any new powers against black, Irish, immigrant and other working-class men they may want to charge for quite unconnected purposes.
In 1984, we initiated the Campaign Against Kerb Crawling Legislation—a coalition of anti-rape, black and civil rights organisations, AIDS prevention groups, lawyers, probation officers and Labour Party activists. We predicted that the Bill would become a new 'sus' law. In response, the House of Lords introduced the requirement of persistence which Shelton's Bill wants dropped. Its removal would mean that any street exchange between a woman and a man could be criminalised, especially, but not only, if the woman is a prostitute.
CAKCL argued that kerb-crawling legislation would add to prostitute and other women's vulnerability to violence by: forcing working women further underground; curtailing the time available for prostitute women to 'sus out' clients nervous about arrest before going with them; committing more police time and resources to prostitution rather than rape and other violent crimes.
That is a telling argument against the Bill from the legal community. Although the Bill is narrow and removes only one word from the existing 1985 legislation, its ramifications are wide.
The New Law Journal continues:
Women in Bristol, Leicester, Manchester, Swindon, Walsall and the London red-light areas of Balham, Bayswater and King's Cross, have confirmed an increase in violence which the police have done little or nothing about. A typical example is that of a black woman who was almost strangled: when the police arrived they ignored the man sitting across the road and arrested her instead. In King's Cross, special police squads have arrested hundreds of women and men in a combined effort to 'clean up' the area, while failing to act to solve murders and rapes.
Women are also being forced to entrap clients. One woman who couldn't refuse outright to be used as bait for fear of arrest, spent all night waving clients on. Other women have been offered immunity if they 'gave the police two kerb-crawlers'.
That happens under the existing legislation. Removing the "persistence" requirement makes it all the more likely that such abuses, mistakes and genuine errors will worsen.
The New Law Journal continues:
If the Government were really interested in women's safety, would it have opposed MP Harry Cohen's Bill…to make rape in marriage a crime? The 1986 Public Order Act gives the police wide powers to arrest anyone for 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour."'
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) asked what I would do instead. I am talking about

legislation that the Government can use immediately. Instead of passing this Bill, which would create further problems, it would be better if the Government intervened to ensure that the existing legislation—the Public Order Act 1986—was used to crack down on kerb crawling. I repeat the exact words,
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.
Those provisions cover the points with which the hon. Member for Streatham is trying to deal. Any kerb crawler who approaches a woman on the street and makes offensive, disgraceful and disgusting suggestions is covered by the existing legislation.
I am prepared to give way to the Minister of State if he will intervene to say that, rather than wait for the outcome of this legislation, he will undertake today to send a letter to every chief constable in Britain, drawing their attention to the existing legislation, which gives them the power under the Public Order Act 1986 to arrest any man who approaches women and makes such suggestions, and to gain convictions in such a way that would mean that the evidence could be tested in court, that there would be a proper chance for defence, and that there would be much less risk of innocent people being entrapped.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and the promoter of the Bill. I take his point that people are arrested wrongfully. Before betting shops were legalised, that trade was plied on the streets and gave offence to passers-by. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the solution would be to legalise prostitution among adults so that it could take place indoors, away from the public gaze? Moreover, those who seek the services of prostitutes would not be at risk from prosecution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) must not widen the debate to that extent. I repeat that we are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill. His remarks must be directed to its contents.

Mr. Livingstone: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. The House should pay attention to her. Before she became a Member of Parliament her career, like mine, was in local government. She lived close to an area where prostitution is persistent; therefore, she speaks with considerable authority. Since she became a Member of Parliament I have been surprised by the number of times that we have found ourselves in the same Lobby.
The Bill is unnecessary. I regret that the Minister has left the Chamber. I offered to give way to him so that he could say why the Government do not use the existing legislation. The onus is on those who want the Bill to say why the existing legislation does not work. Those who support the Bill complain about the kerb-crawling legislation that was introduced in 1985. They were warned at the time, in this House and in another place, that it would not solve the problem and would lead to wrongful arrests. That legislation has failed. Instead of tinkering with it and making it worse, surely it would be better if the Government used existing legislation that does not attract the same kind of opprobrium, withdrew their support for the Bill and used their powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to give directions to chief constables.
I should like the Home Secretary to issue today a memorandum to chief constables and the Commission of Police of the Metropolis drawing their attention to that legislation and asking them to provide protection for


women on our streets who are harassed not just by kerb crawlers but by lewd and offensive suggestions from workers on building sites. Before we vote to change the law, the Government must tell us why they neglect to use legislation that they pushed through the House against considerable opposition, giving to the police the power to deal with the problem. Why is the House being asked to pass new legislation when much more effective legislation is already on the statute book? It provides checks, balances and safeguards that would prevent wrongful arrests and charges from being made.
I have not referred to many other sections of the article in New Law Journal, but it concludes:
If kerb-crawling legislation is allowed to set a standard of equality between women and men, possession of condoms may be used as evidence of kerb-crawling, further discouraging clients already reluctant to use condoms. Fines against prostitute women may increase to £1,000 to match Shelton's proposal for kerb-crawlers, thereby forcing more women to see more clients to pay higher fines. And any woman or man may be criminalised for carrying condoms —The Sunday Telegraph reported that a woman solicitor who was coming back from abroad was arrested for having condoms in her bag.

Mr. Colvin: That is most extraordinary. I thought that the Government's campaign against AIDS—to persuade the public to protect themselves against AIDS—would encourage people to carry condoms and be prepared at all times. I recall a recent television programme by Mr. Dave Allen in which he pointed out—I do not say that he is always right—that when most gentlemen remove their wallets from their pockets, there is always a telltale outline which shows that most gentlemen go round the world fully prepared for the unscheduled event.

Mr. Livingstone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall watch in future as hon. Members take out their wallets in the Tea Room.
The legislation would worsen the chances of reducing the spread of AIDS by the use of condoms. Those who work with prostitute women and have studied the Bill warn that the pressure on a prostitute to get a client quickly, before that client is arrested for kerb crawling, means that it will be difficult for the prostitute to chat for a while to try to sus out whether the client is a psychopath, to discuss the terms of the arrangement and to make it clear that she is not prepared to get in the car unless the man is prepared to use a condom. The man will be under tremendous fear of being arrested, so he will not want to loiter and talk or discuss the terms. The danger is that there will be less use of condoms as the women will get into cars before they have obtained the assurance that a condom will be used. Therefore, the legislation may increase the spread of AIDS.
In the case to which the New Law Journal drew attention, the woman concerned used that defence in court. I cannot remember the outcome of the case, but it was stressed that the Government are urging everyone to use condoms more frequently, yet the possession of condoms in a handbag in a red-light district is all the evidence that a police officer needs to gain a conviction against a prostitute woman. It is absolute nonsense and the legislation will worsen the bias against the use of condoms that exists in the laws relating to prostitution.
We also have to bear in mind the risks to prostitute women. A prostitute has very little time in which to determine whether someone is a genuine punter or a psychopath. There are a vast number of unsolved murders and brutal attacks on prostitute women. The case of the Yorkshire Ripper illustrated that it is extremely difficult for police to catch random psychopathic killers.
The New Law Journal concludes:
When the rights of prostitute women are trampled on, the rights of others, women and men (the poorest first, of course), are not far behind. The road to equality downwards—between prostitute women and clients, between women and men—is a bottomless pit.
The Sexual Offences Bill does not seek to tackle the causes of the problem but simply to increase penalties for kerb crawlers and to make them as punitive as the penalties faced by prostitute women. I have not the slightest doubt, if the legislation becomes law, that the next stage will be legislation to increase the fines on prostitute women to the level of those laid down in the Sexual Offences Bill.
I know that some Conservative Members will not be particularly persuaded by this, but on Tuesday The Guardian carried a most informative article by Jo Grant about the implications of the Bill. After a long introduction which covers the issues that I have already mentioned, Jo Grant comes to the nub of the argument:
However, the bill faces vociferous opposition from an unlikely but well-organised pressure group—the English Collective of Prostitutes. The Collective was formed in 1975 to promote the interests of black and white women working in the sex industry. Its members campaign vigorously from a base at King's Cross Women's Centre in north London. Their aims include the abolition of the prostitution laws, legal and civil rights for prostitutes and economic improvements for women so that no one is forced into prostitution through poverty. Nina Lopez-Jones is the Collective's articulate spokeswoman and leading light. She has written many of the books and pamphlets on the Collective's extensive publications list. She also gives talks to community and women's groups about the Collective and its campaigns.
Chief among those at the moment is their opposition to the new Sexual Offences bill. Before the second reading in February, they lobbied key MPs to make their objections known. A particular concern is that the new bill removes the old requirements that a man has to kerb crawl 'persistently' before he can be arrested.
Under Sir William Shelton's bill, any man who talks to a woman once could be convicted solely on the evidence of one policeman. The woman would not be required to attend court, so there would be no proof that she was a prostitute. Although it would be unlikely that the police officer had actually heard what was said, his evidence alone could secure a conviction that could ruin a man's life.
In virtually any other modern western democracy, such legislation would be unconstitutional. It could not be applied in Scotland, where legal protections and rights are much stronger than in England. In this, as in many other respects, Scotland is well in advance of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The article continues:
The collective are concerned at the power this puts into the hands of the police and fear the bill could be used in an arbitrary and random fashion by unscrupulous officers. It is so open-ended, they feel, that it could soon become a replacement for the notorious 'sus' laws.
I remind the House that the campaign against the sus laws continued for a long time and built up massive support. They were a complete anachronism. When they were wiped from the statute book, everyone —both in the legal profession and outside breathed a sigh of relief. I know that the hon. Member for Streatham is an


honourable man, and seeks to solve an appalling problem that affects his constituents. It is not his intention to provide a trojan horse through which a new sus law can be brought slowly to bear.

Sir William Shelton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the problem that kerb crawling causes to my constituents, and to many other people throughout the country. Is he aware that on Report and Third Reading recently we had a debate lasting for four hours, and that he spoke for more than one hour? Does he recollect that he has objected to the Bill five times on Fridays? Is he proposing to talk it out? If so, he may become the friend of the kerb crawlers and prostitutes and the enemy of the badgers, as he will deny an appearance on the Floor of the House to those friendly animals.

Mr. Livingstone: I oppose the Bill because it is bad law. That is the right of an hon. Member. I recognise that the Daily Express and the Daily Mail do not agree with me. As, is often the case, those two virulent little journals have lied and distorted the truth about this debate. They are a disgrace to their profession: they have lower professional standards than the prostitute women and kerb crawlers to whom they have referred. One must ignore that, however, and do what is right. The Bill would lead to the conviction of innocent people, and I will do everything possible to stop it reaching the statute book.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to correct something that was said by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). I have it on good authority that, were the Bill to complete its remaining stages before 2.30 pm, the Protection of Badger Setts Bill—sadly—would still not be reached. The spokespeople of the British Field Sports Society in the House who tried to impede it in Committee—on which I sat—intend to talk out the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. I have an amendment to that Government-sponsored Bill. Irrespective of the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—or any other contributions—we shall not reach the Protection of Badger Setts Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: After those interventions, let us return to the Bill that we are discussing.

Mr. Livingstone: I shall do everything possible to ensure that the Protection of Badger Setts is passed. That is not the problem. There cannot be a deal which says, "Let us pass this Bill although it might lead to the conviction of innocent people, except that we do not need it because we already have the Public Order Act, which gives the police full powers to tackle the problem, and carry on to reach the Protection of Badger Setts Bill." As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, other hon. Members determined to talk that out.

Mr. Colvin: As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, I must point out that some hon. Members have been wrongly associated with a movement to stop it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, given the delicate nature of private Members' legislation, it is essential that there is a meeting of minds which often takes place outside the Chamber. I succeeded in getting a private Members' Bill on to the statute book this Session. Without a great deal of

compromise, which was reached in discussion outside the Chamber, that would not have been possible. That is the way forward for the Protection of Badget Setts Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) appreciates that. If he were to follow that approach, there is a good chance that the Bill will get on to the statute book, which is what we all want.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not anticipate later debates.

Mr. Livingstone: Whatever we do, badgers will not be put at risk by the sexual offences legislation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Melloir): The hon. Gentleman is being inappropriately skittish. He thinks that it is great fun to be the only hon. Member who is seeking to block the Bill. The only consequences of his doing so is that men who are making a nuisance of themselves and causing genuine problems to women in urban areas will get away wih it, and boys who are committing acts of rape will get away with it because an absurd legal technicality that deems that they are not capable of such acts. If he is determined to talk out the Bill, let him not be skittish. Most hon. Members would look for better things to put on their escutcheon than blocking a Bill such as this. He is getting no help from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, so if he is determined to do this, let him at least do it with a bit of dignity and in the recognition that 649 hon. Members do not agree with him.

Mr. Livingstone: I am interested by the Minister's intervention. When we last debated this, there were not 649 hon. Members present—indeed, there were not 50 hon. Members present. He cannot invoke the idea that the whole House is happily in favour of the Bill. Leading members of his party have approached me privately to commend my stand because they consider the legislation to be flawed and dangerous.

Mr. Mellor: I suspect that that is a terminological inexactitude. It is easy for hon. Members to devise conversations without fully disclosing them; the hon. Gentleman is a past master at that. He cannot hide behind that evasion. He knows full well that on a Friday many hon. Members are absent with good reason. He also knows full well that no other hon. Member is prepared to block the Bill. He is alone in doing that. I cannot think that he serves any interest very well, not least those of women in his constituency. If he is to block the Bill, let us not have any trivial remarks about badgers not being put at risk. Groups of people who most of us take just as seriously as badgers—women—will be put at risk as a result of what he is doing.

Mr. Livingstone: It is a pleasure to hear the Minister getting so upset. If this legislation is so important, why, after 11 years in office, have not the Government introduced it? If, as he told the House—terminological inexactitude is an understatement—people are committing rape and getting away with it but the Bill will stop them, why have not the Government, after 11 years in office, considered it important enough to introduce legislation? If he is genuinely concerned about women, let him tell the House why the Government are blocking the legislation that will make rape in marriage a crime. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman comes close to stretching the credibility of those who must listen to him.
The Minister gave all sorts of commitments at an earlier stage in the debate. What is the basis on which a Government have to give commitments on how legislation will operate to ensure that it is not 'inaccurately followed? The Government have the ability, in Government time, to produce legislation that does not have those problems.

Mr. Mellor: I am playing the hon. Gentleman's game, but even he is coming to the end of it. We might as well at least hear something on the other side of the case. It is a recognised fact that private Members bring forward legislation with Government support and effect major changes in the criminal law, as was done to increase the sentences for drug trafficking to life imprisonment. That is a well-recognised way to meet the inclinations of not only private Members, because of particular constituency problems, but of the Government and, to be fair, the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman has made a bad and spurious point.
This practice requires people who are prepared to stand within the camp rather then being, like the hon. Gentleman, out of sympathy with the normal way in which business is transacted. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised points which I was able to meet to his satisfaction. That is the way things are done. There is nothing unusual about suggesting that the legislation will be monitored and giving the commitments which mean that it could be revoked if the hon. Gentleman's fanciful motions that the Bill will be used oppressively proved true. Some of those who opposed the sus law did not just emote against it but sat on the Committee considering the legislation—as I did—and abolished it.
Even at the 11th hour, the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ensure that the predicted consequences of the Bill the last time objection was made to it, five years ago, are erased. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman will not even accept the guidance of his Front Bench but stands apart from every other Member who has participated in the debate, whatever ghostly comments he may have heard in the Corridor.

Mr. Livingstone: It is interesting to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman speculate about what other people might believe or do. If the support for this legislation about which he tells the House exists, it is in his power to move a closure motion and see whether he can find enough Members to vote. If this legislation is that important, why have not the Government gone through the normal nods and winks process and got their supporters here to pass it?
I still want to hear an answer to the question I put to the Minister. Is he telling the House that for 11 years the Government have allowed people to get away with rape and that this legislation will stop that? That was the implication of his comments, but he knows that it is not true. The Government have recognised that the law needs to be tidied up on a technical point. It is clearly nonsense to say that boys under 14 are incapable of sexual intercourse. At the earliest stages, I made it clear that the House agrees that this anomaly should end, not just because someone is getting away with it. All the young boys under 14 who commit rape and are captured by the police are detained under the existing legislation in exactly

the same institutions and for exactly the same period as they would have been detained if the law relating to rape applied to young boys.
The Minister came close to misleading the House, and I notice that he does not step up to offer an apology or to give the evidence showing that boys under 14 who have got away with rape would have been caught by this legislation.

Mr. Mellor: I notice that the hon. Gentleman—who has no legal qualifications and had no long-term interest in this matter, until his interest was whipped up by the English Collective of Prostitutes and others—speaks with great authority on matters that do not lie within his ken. I do not propose to carry on making the hon. Gentleman's task of filibustering any easier. The fact that I do not rise to my feet does not mean that I accept any of his points. It is utterly wrong that someone who commits rape should get away with it on a technicality. The idea that such a person can be charged with other offences—as he can—does not go to the point. One could say that any rape involves violence, so why bother to have the offence? I shall not be drawn into that argument. If the hon. Gentleman is so determined to do his dirty business, let him do so without invoking my assistance. I want to put on record the fact that what he is doing this afternoon is thoroughly and utterly discreditable and reprehensible. It is discreditable not only to people, including many of his hon. Friends, with legitimate constituency concerns, but in the eyes of the occupants of his Front Bench, as was made clear on the previous occasion, when they dissociated themselves from what he is trying to do.

Mr. Livingstone: Still the Minister does not provide examples. Is he really saying that for 11 years people have been getting away with rape on a legal technicality, yet the Government have not been prepared to introduce legislation to stop it? What nonsense. If he will not provide examples of cases, it comes close to an attempt to deceive the House and play to the gallery, which is what happened last time. On that occasion I was approached by Conservative Members and told, in effect, "If you block the Bill, we will have a campaign against you and say that you are the loony Left."
I do not give in to such threats. I am blocking the Bill because it would be bad law and would lead to people being convicted for crimes of which they were innocent. I will not be browbeaten by the Minister or be put off by him. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is perhaps more of a gentleman than I am. He believed the assurances that the Minister gave. I do not believe them. I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman inside and outside the House, for 10 years and I would not give tuppence for his assurances. Even if he intended to carry them out, I do not believe that he has the necessary control over the judiciary or the police.
The Minister could stop the problem of kerb crawling by using the existing law, under which the police have power to arrest people who offend women in that way. Will the Minister circulate to chief constables and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis an instruction drawing their attention to the existing legislation and the problem? Will he get to his feet and say what he proposes to do about that?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is at some management committee meeting of the Labour party, browbeating in the old way. I will not respond to


that, but I must tell him that despite the veneer that he puts on, for our benefit, of bonhomie and sophistication, it does not take much to bring out the sneering and snarling individual to whom we have been listening. He has no reason to accuse me of bad faith. I have been in the House a good deal longer than he has. and I have been a Minister for nine years, regularly giving assurances. Not once has anyone said that my assurances were inaccurate or not well-intentioned. Such a charge has never been levelled against me by the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench because on legislation—for example, in dealing recently with the Broadcasting Bill—I have always been able to work effectively with them.
The ridiculousness of the hon. Gentleman's position is fully exposed, and to defend himself he must make imputations of had faith which, frankly, say more about him than about anything that has come from his Front Bench.

Mr. Livingstone: Again, the Minister has not answered my question. He is not prepared to give the House the details of alleged cases of boys under 14 getting away with rape. Nor is he prepared to say that he will use the existing legislation and the resources of the police to tackle the problem now. What has the Minister been doing since we last debated this issue? He has heard from hon. Members whose constituents suffer the harassment of kerb crawlers and he knows that under existing legislation he has power to take action now. Why is he not doing that?
The answer is that the Government are playing politics with the issue. They have had all the time in the world to tackle the problems of violence against, and harassment of, women inside and outside marriage, but they are not prepared to deal with that. They have used the procedures that I am using to block a Bill that would have made rape in marriage illegal. Will the Minister now accept that that was a mistake? Are the Government prepared to say that rape in marriage should be a crime and that they will allow that measure to proceed?
One cannot give credence to a Government who, after 11 years in office, have neglected the rights of women and who now pose as the champions of women by hiding behind this measure in the name of the hon. Member for Streatham. They control the state machine, the police and the judiciary. After over a decade in Government those issues are not being tackled, and they must answer for that. I repeat my offer to the Minister to explain why he will not use the Public Order Act 1986 and other legislation to ensure that the issue is dealt with now. We should not wait for the Bill to be passed and crawl its way through the Lords. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about women who are harassed on our streets, he should tell the House why he will not use existing legislation and circulate to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the chief constables a memorandum drawing their attention to this problem and demanding that they put police resources into tackling it.
The Minister will not do so because this is about politics and vote-buying. That is why his party collaborates in the sort of smears that we saw in the gutter press. I will not be browbeaten by the gutter press, and certainly not by the Minister. He has it in his power to tackle the problem, but he is not prepared to do it, any more than the Government have been prepared to do much at all for women in any area during the past decade. The Government are in no sense the friends of women. All that they want out of this

is to creep back with a new form of sus law that will allow an individual man to be arrested and convicted solely on the word of a police officer. No self-respecting western democracy has such power and no good police officer wants it. If laws have to rely on such power, they will be more at home in the regimes that we are seeing collapse in eastern Europe and other parts of the world where democracy has no long-term standing or is no more than a sham.
In this country all individuals should be able to rely on the law to defend them. Women are harassed and men who might be innocently driving through an area could be stopped by a police officer who says, "I saw you stop and talk to a woman." No evidence would have to be produced, and the woman involved would not have to be produced, but a conviction could be gained solely on the basis of the police officer's word. No law in this country should give rise to such circumstances. Under this Government there has been far too much of a drift away from the old principles of justice where people are convicted on the basis of evidence, particularly forensic evidence. More and more, convictions are based solely on a police officer's word and the extraction of confessions in the cells.
Our legal system is probably the worst in western Europe in terms of its checks and balances. I do not have the slightest intention of pandering to the Minister. I repeat that I would not believe his assurances on any basis and I am not prepared to accept them now. If I do so and step down, I will not have to put up with the filth that will appear in The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express tomorrow, but innocent people will be harassed and the sus law will return. I am not prepared to see that, so I am exercising my right to stand here and oppose a Bill that I think is wrong.
After all this time, there has been no answer to the questions that I put to the Government. Every time the Minister gets to his feet he puts forward another smear or plays to the gallery. No doubt the gutter press are getting their headlines ready for tomorrow. I am not interested in that.

Sir William Shelton: Has the hon. Gentleman ever approached me or considered approaching me to see whether we could reach some agreement on the Bill?

Mr. Livingstone: There is no agreement; there is a basic, fundamental disagreement. The Bill has two simple points. The first, which is completely uncontroversial for hon. Members, is to remove the problem of the law's inability to state that boys under 14 can commit sexual intercourse. In the previous debate on this Bill, I said that if the other part of the Bill were dropped, we would agree to the remaining section and it would be unanimously carried in the House and in the House of Lords. There is no dissent about that.
The problem relates to the other part of the Bill which means that one police officer's word will be able to convict a man, without any corroborating evidence or witness. That is the point of contention and there is no way that that can be compromised away because it is a genuine point of disagreement. I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member for Streatham, but not that of the Minister.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). At least my hon.


Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is visible when he is talking out the Bill. Everyone knows that if my hon. Friend is still talking at 2.30, the Bill will not proceed. Everyone in the country will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East did it, whereas my Bill —the Protection of Badger Setts Bill—was killed off by one Member, who did not consult me either, but who tried to claim the cloak of anonymity. At least my hon. Friend is not trying to kill the Bill anonymously.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is killing the badger Bill.

Mr. Livingstone: After the various diversions that originated from the Minister, I shall return to the place in my speech where I was interrupted by him about 20 minutes ago.
Once again, I must draw the House's attention to the analysis of the Bill that appeared in The Guardian. I know that some Conservative Members regard The Guardian as an adjunct to the Labour party, but that is not how it appears to us. It analyses the objections that the English Collective of Prostitutes has put up:
the Collective are concerned at the power this puts into the hands of the police and fear that the bill could be used in an arbitrary and random fashion by unscrupulous officers. It is so open-ended, they feel, that it could soon become a replacement for the notorious 'sus' laws.
Ninety-nine per cent. of police officers are excellent and honourable people. They come into the profession because they want to serve the public and they do so to the best of their ability, often with inadequate resources provided by central and local government. Often they have the task of implementing legislation which has been particularly badly drafted by the House; they can often be the meat in the sandwich between a resistant public and a reactionary Government, but they do the best that they can. Even if we accept that 99 per cent. are honest and honourable and honourable—

Sir William Shelton: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 5.

Division No. 284]
[2.11 pm


AYES


Amess, David
McWilliam, John


Anderson, Donald
Maples, John


Atkins, Robert
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Mellor, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Moate, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Carrington, Matthew
Sackville, Hon Tom


Cash, William
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
Squire, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Stern, Michael


Durant, Tony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Thorne, Neil


Fraser, John
Tredinnick, David


Gale, Roger
Wheeler, Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Widdecombe, Ann


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)



Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janman, Tim
Sir William Shelton and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Hugo Summerson.





NOES


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Corbyn, Jeremy
Tellers for the Noes:


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Ken Livingstone.


Skinner, Dennis

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).

Mr. Livingstone: In one sense, I am rather glad that the hon. Member for Streatham called the Division. The result of it puts into perspective the remarks of the Minister of State, Home Office. If the hon. and learned Gentleman bothers to return to the Chamber, he may care to explain why proposed legislation that he says is vital does not attract the support of enough Conservative Members even to force a closure. That puts the reality into perspective.

Sir William Shelton: Will the hon. Gentleman understand that I did not contact any of my colleagues, who would have come to the House gladly? I was unaware until late last night that the Consumer Guarantees Bill would not be on the Order Paper. Will the hon. Gentleman understand also my strength of feeling at his action in killing the Bill, which is desperately needed by many people? If he attracts the label of the friend of the prostitute and the kerb crawler, and the hon. Member who helped to talk out the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, it will be what he deserves.

Mr. Livingstone: I thank the hon. Gentleman for revealing the motives behind the Government's protestations.

Sir Bernard Braine: What are the hon. Gentleman's motives?

Mr. Livingstone: Had the Father of the House been in his place earlier, he would have heard me explain that we could immediately tackle the problem of kerb crawling. The Government have the powers that they need under the Public Order Act 1986. Any man approaching a woman and making an offensive or indecent suggestion can be arrested under that legislation. I am sure that the Father of the House will want to know about my proposal and add his weight to it. I said to the Minister of State, Home Office, "Why do you not immediately issue a circular to every chief constable and to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reminding them of the 1986 legislation and urging them to get their officers out on the streets to tackle the problem immediately?" The Government have the necessary powers, but they do not have the political will to act. They do not have the commitment to defend women.
What we have seen is a sham and a play for votes. The contribution of the hon. Member for Streatham suggests that more is going on to produce headlines than to tackle the problem of women being harassed. That is exactly what I would expect from a Government whose supporters are blocking the Bill to make rape in marriage illegal.
I am sure that the Father of the House supports that Bill. Let him join me in urging those hon. Members who have been jumping up and down protesting their support for the Sexual Offences Bill to campaign to get the Public Order Act 1986 used immediately, as it can be. The Government could issue an instruction tonight to police forces throughout the country. They could ensure that


time was found to consider the proposed legislation that would make rape in marriage illegal. We require action from the Executive, not a whole load of hot air, with hon. Members playing to the gallery and trying to stir up the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Sun and the other elements of the gutter press that have done nothing in the past decade to put pressure on the Government genuinely to defend the rights of women or genuinely to protect women on our streets and in our homes. Everything that the Government have done has undermined the position of women. The Government are playing politics with this issue.
We should not pass legislation which is, in effect, a new sus law, and which allows the police powers that would not be acceptable in any other modern western democracy with a written constitution or a Bill of Rights. If the Government wish to pursue that line, let them have the courage to find the time in their legislative programme for next Session, and do something about it—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Private Members' Bills

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr. Michael Brown: On behalf of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Monday next.

Consideration deferred till Monday 9 July.

PROTECTION OF BADGER SETTS BILL

Order read for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.
Consideration deferred till Friday 13 July.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) moved that his Bill be now read a Second Time, I honestly did not hear any hon. Member say "Object"—[HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] If you heard an objection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could you tell us from whom it came?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been round that course on many previous Fridays. As this is the last effective Friday for private Members' Bills, perhaps it would be as well if I were to remind the House that this is a well-established procedure. I clearly heard "Object", which means that the Bill—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not finished. I also remind the House that the Select Committee on Procedure has considered this procedure fairly recently and has advised against any change to it. The Committee, of course, gave its reasons for so doing.
It might also be as well if I remind the House that the procedure of objection is not available only at 2.30 pm on a Friday; it is used frequently on main sitting days at 2.30 pm to stop private Bills. It can equally be used to stop Government motions at various times. If an hon. Member shouts "Object" to any of those categories of Bill, that does not necessarily mean that he objects to the Bill as such. He may merely be objecting to the Bill proceeding without debate or scrutiny. I hope that that helps to clarify the position for the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful to you for the explanation that you have just given of the present position. You did not call me when I sought to rise a little earlier—I should have shouted that I wanted to make a point of order. Great indignation was felt by my hon. Friends about the way in which the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) sabotaged a Bill—and subsequently glorified in that fact—which is of great social importance and of great importance in terms of law and


order in many parts of the country. Happily, that is not the case in my constituency, but there is a major problem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) which he was seeking to alleviate, with the support of all of us.
I do not know whether the Select Committee on Procedure can be persuaded to reconsider that matter, but there is something badly wrong with our procedures when a Bill that is desired by many people, by the forces of law and order, and especially by women is sabotaged. The hon. Member for Brent, East gave us a lecture, but he was not even well informed. I shall not go into the details now because this is a point of order, but there must be a strong case for the Select Committee on Procedure being asked to reconsider that matter. Parliament is a living and continuing thing. It may take a view one day, but if abuse continues to occur, I believe that the Select Committee should be asked to reconsider.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fully understand what the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), said, but what occurred today was in order. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman feels that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, who better to do that than he?

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I say through you, Sir, to the Father of the House, for whom I have infinite respect, that I believe, as a member of the Procedure Committee, that he has made a good point? However, I must point out to him that there was a difference between the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) dealt with the Sexual Offences Bill and the method used by those who objected to my Protection of Badger Setts Bill. My hon. Friend objected openly to the Sexual Offences Bill. He will have to take whatever public criticism comes his way and he will, no doubt, endure it in his customary fashion.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I clearly heard the objections to my Protection of Badger Setts Bill from the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). The difference between them and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East is that they want to wear the cloak of anonymity. Every hon. Member must in the end be accountable for his or her actions. I respect the views of any hon. Members who wish to use the procedures of the House to kill off a Bill if they believe that that is in the best interests of their constituents, or of whatever other interests they serve. However, they ought not then to be able to claim anonymity.
I was not here at 9.30 when a number of points of order were raised because last week I named the hon. Member for Devizes who objected to my Bill. I understand that he has received a number of threats. I utterly deplore them. Anyone who issues threats ought to realise that, far from the hon. Member for Devizes being criticised by the public, as he ought to be, he could gain their sympathy. I hope that anyone who is considering such foolhardy actions will bear that in mind. The Bill will return to this place, when

the hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside and for Devizes will undoubtedly endure public criticism for having killed off the Protection of Badger Setts Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter has been well ventilated on both sides of the House. We must now get on.

GAMING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (7). [Special Entry.]—[Mr. Gale.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

WRITTEN CONSTITUTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take it when I have dealt with the remaining orders.

FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

POLL TAX (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

LOCAL AUTHORITY PLAYING FIELDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. David Amess: With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 20 July.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

NUMBERING OF PREMISES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CONTROL OF TOXIC WASTE RESIDUES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

DRUG TESTING (SCHOOLS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

INJURIOUS AFFECTION (AMENDMENT)BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTORAL REFORM BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

FORMER MINISTERS (INTERESTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (PROTECTION OF GREENFIELD SITES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

BEACHES AND COASTLINE (REGULATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

SAFEGUARDS FOR RESIDENTS IN REGISTERED HOMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

ADOPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

DOGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTS (RESTRICTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Robin Squire: I feel lucky. Friday 13 July.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS CLAUSES ACT 1847 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

ABOLITION OF DEER HUNTING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

LICENSING OF TICKET SALES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Michael Stern: With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 20 July.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next, Sir. That was a disgraceful objection.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

Mr. Amess: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My Bill—the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill—was not moved. I am pleased to say that the Government have agreed to assist in securing a piece of land in a prominent part of London on which to place a fitting tribute to Raoul Wallenberg, and I shall therefore not be taking the Bill any further. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped to bring about this unique event.

Sir Bernard Braine: I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill. I was greatly disturbed—for reasons that I have already mentioned—by the way in which objection to the Bill was handled; however, there has been a happy ending to the story. Let me simply say that the Bill was intended to secure a memorial to one of the great heroes of the 20th century, whom the United States made an honorary American citizen. Surely the least that we can do is mark his sacrifice, and his dedication and devotion in saving at least 100,000 lives through personal endeavour by ensuring that the piece of land so generously offered by the Government is sited prominently in our capital city.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a particularly observant occupant of the Chair, you will have noticed that, during the slaughter of the innocents that traditionally takes place on this day every July, many hon. Members objecting to ten-minute Bills—most of them Opposition Members—have stood to record their objections. Should not the names of such hon. Members be recorded? At least hon. Members who attempt to say publicly why they oppose certain Bills would then be able to do so.
The Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill has been presented seven times in the two most recent Parliaments, and has always been objected to, usually by a member of the Trappist tendency on the Conservative Benches. That has caused grave disquiet to many pensioners who would like to see some light at the end of the poverty tunnel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to discuss the Bill. What is his point of order?

Mr. Corbyn: The point of order is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am here nearly every Friday at this time to discuss these issues. You must be aware of the disquiet in the House about the anonymity, of objectors: it is tantamount to a secret vote. In an elected Parliament, everything should be open and above board. If the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) wishes to oppose the abolition of deer hunting—or the excellent Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to protect badger setts—let him stand up and say so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I deal with the point of order from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I may short-circuit later points of order.
This matter was dealt with at length by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of our proceedings today. I have repeated what he said, and made one or two additional points in the light of points of order. There is nothing that I can add.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and on a separate matter, relating to the business that has just gone through.
I realise that silent objections are not a matter for the Chair; you and Mr. Speaker have made that clear. One of this week's issues, however, has been behaviour that discredits Parliament. People outside complain regularly about Bills that are killed rather than being allowed to be voted out. If their future is determined by a vote, people understand; if it is determined by an unnamed objector, they do not, and they do not regard that as a democratic process.
Will you clarify another point, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I understand from the Vote Office that many of the Bills in the long list that has just been read out have not been printed. If that is so, am I right in thinking that, in effect, hon. Members will have no opportunity to move the motion for Second Reading? Would it be possible in future for the Order Paper to show whether a Bill has been printed, and, if it has not, for it not to appear on the Order Paper? There was a long list of Bills that had been printed, but it was made longer by the Bills that had not been printed. The general view is that Bills that are serious attempts at legislation should he printed. They should be seen as serious legislation, whereas that status should not be accorded to Bills of hon. Members who, as it were, fly a kite but never draft or print the Bills.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I deal with this, because it is probably a separate point? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) makes a valuable point, because sometimes the procedure is somewhat confusing. If there were no objection to a Bill that had not been printed, we would not allow its Second Reading to be moved. The hon. Gentleman may wish to put his other point to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point. I have no hesitation in objecting, and being identified as somebody who had objected, to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill and the Abolition of Deer Hunting Bill. I do object—I made this point earlier today—to the promoter of the Bill abusing points of order by making a speech about an objection to which, without a further abuse of the points of order procedure, the hon. Member who has objected has no opportunity to reply. The actions and words of the promoter of a Bill can be misconstrued by people outside who have an interest in it. I hope very much, as a result of the many points of order raised this morning and the clarification given from the Chair by you, Sir, and Mr. Speaker, that the public outside will begin to appreciate that objections to Bills are often merely an attempt further to discuss measures such as the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, which I want to see on the statute book in an amended form.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the points of order made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is right that people should be clear about the procedures of the House. The points that he made were valuable. People are confused not only by the procedure that we have just gone through but about some of the Bills that are brought before the House.
In a point of order, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested that he did not know who had objected to his Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill. Anyone who did not know that I had volubly objected to it would have to be lacking in all sensory perception. The real abuse is that the Bill had no chance of succeeding. It would never have been in the programme of any party and the hon. Gentleman is misleading people, for his own political advantage, into believing that it had any chance of succeeding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are all valid points to put to the Select Committee on Procedure, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Both hon. Members who are now standing have had a go. I will call them again, but I am extremely anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wishes to say in his Adjournment debate. I should like to get on to that pretty quickly.

Mr. Banks: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was most disingenuous: he said that his only reason for objecting to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill was that he wanted further debate. He knows that there will be no further opportunity to debate it on the Floor of the House unless the Government allocate time for that. He was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and we had three full sittings, at which he made all the points that he wanted. If he had allowed the Bill to proceed today, it could have gone to the other place, where the further debate could have been held. The hon. Gentleman should not try to pull the wool over the House's eyes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot debate these matters now.

Mr. Martyn Jones: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, spurious points of order were made about my Consumer Guarantees Bill. Mr. Speaker ruled that the procedure that I used to change the date from today to 20 July was perfectly in order, but will you confirm that?
I forced a voted on the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill, which resulted in it being dropped arid moved to Monday. I believe that this is a genuine point of order. Will you confirm, Sir, that the Government can allow time for a debate on that day and could allow time for my Consumer Guarantees Bill to be considered in Government time? That would show that the Government are concerned about consumers, not about manufacturers who produce shoddy goods.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should not want to deal with that point off the cuff. I am not exactly sure about that, and I should want to give the hon. Gentleman wholly accurate advice. I suggest that he seek advice afterwards from the Clerks, who I am sure will be able to tell him exactly what happens.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to speak on the Adjournment?

Mr. Corbyn: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order. I should like to put on record my gratitude to the hon. Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for bringing a little glasnost into the Chamber. They have at last said that they are opposed to the debating—not to the passage—of the two Bills with which I am associated.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: That is untrue. Do not tell lies in the House.

Mr. Corbyn: I heard the hon. Member for Harrow, West say something that I believe to be fully out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The comments by the hon. Members for Harrow, West and for Romsey and Waterside re-emphasise the point that the House needs to debate procedure once again. If a Member who has the support of thousands, if not millions, of people wishes to bring to the attention of the nation the problem of the impoverishment of elderly people, that does not mean that the relevant legislation will be carried by the House. I am pretty sure that Conservative Members would vote against it. I am sure that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is the function of the House to debate measures brought forward by individual Members through the proper procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot debate these matters now. I have let the House have a good run.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) shall apply to the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Orkney Line Ltd, and Shetland Line (1984) Ltd. and to the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Shetland Line (1984) Ltd. as if they were draft statutory instruments; and that the said draft Undertakings be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Islington Health Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to refer to the problems of Islington health authority, which obviously covers my constituency as well as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and part of the borough of Haringey, which is covered by the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency.
I am sponsored as a Member by the National Union of Public Employees. I receive no personal income from that organisation, but I have a considerable interest in the health service through that sponsorship and because I represent an inner-city area. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury cannot be here, because he is away in Brussels on Front-Bench duties. He wishes to be associated with the general thrust of my remarks because he is worried about these matters.
The Islington health authority covers a predominantly impoverished inner-city area. In many senses, the health problems in the area are related either to the poverty of elderly people—there is an aging population—or to housing and social stress, such as alcoholism and various forms of psychiatric illness which largely emanate from social conditions.
It is to the credit of many people and organisations in Islington—the health authority, the council, the community health council, Islington Health Watch and many more—that Healthy Islington 2000 has been launched. It is trying to put into practice what the World Health Organisation has been preaching for a long time. I refer to a paper which was included in the report by Dr. Leila Lessof, the borough's public health officer. Monika Schwartz produced a paper on behalf of Healthy Islington 2000, in which she said:
We can recognise that not only do we need to promote healthier life-styles, we also need to create a healthier environment for people who work and live in Islington.
The main points were as follows: to develop relevant health targets and indicators; to address directly inequalities in health, taking account of the health needs of the black and ethnic communities who live in Islington; to co-ordinate health promotion activities between the borough, the district health authority and other agencies; and to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to improving health and collaborative projects.
The Government's funding policies in respect of the needs of Islington health authority do not make many of those achievements possible.
The borough has been poll tax-capped, as have neighbouring boroughs, so there are problems involved in trying to implement the community care policies that have been put forward. There are also problems associated with the lack of ring fencing of community care expenditure, an issue which was extensively debated in the House recently. In addition, there is a great thirst for a better health service in Islington. The social history of the borough reveals—for example, the establishment of the Manor Gardens centre in 1912—the desire of working-class people living in the poor area of Upper Holloway to achieve a degree of communally provided and funded community health care.
There are several health funding issues affecting Islington that I particularly draw to the attention of the House. One is the closure of Friern hospital, a large Victorian institution in the borough of Barnet which is jointly funded by Islington and several other areas. It is due for closure in 1993 and has been the subject of much controversy, particularly since there is no ring fencing of the community care provision of money that will be passed to borough councils.
I do not doubt the intentions of the London borough of Islington to carry out a decent community care policy. It is simply that the pressures on the borough's budget are intolerable. In addition, the borough has been poll tax-capped, as has the neighbouring borough of Haringey. An example of the difficulties facing mentally ill patients came in this story in The Haringey Independent of 28 June:
Forty-nine-year-old Miss Patricia Burbidge of Wood Green was taken to North Middlesex Hospital where she died of multiple injuries.
She was a mentally ill woman who was killed when she was in collision with a train at Bounds Green station.
Police are not treating Miss Burbidge's death as suspicious and an inquest will be held later this month. They believe Miss Burbidge was an in-patient at Friern Barnet, a mental hospital being run down as part of the Government's care in the community programme. The Voluntary Co-ordinator of the Enfield and Haringey Branch of the Schizophrenia Fellowship, Pamela Maher, criticised the pace of the rundown of long stay psychiatric hospitals in the wake of the tragedy. She said: With the rundown of Friern Barnet Hospital, it's increasingly difficult for staff to cope.'
That emphasises many of the problems affecting the morale of the staff and the safety of patients, due to the rundown and accompanying loss of staff.
That newspaper carried a further story about the closure of Friern hospital and reported that Dr. Doris Hollander, consultative community psychiatrist at Friern hospital, was deeply worried about the shift of patients from the hospital. They would end up homeless, in prison or committing suicide, she said.
It is important for us to air loudly problems such as that. There are 590 patients at Friern, 200 of whom come from Islington. I am sorry to say that patients from many mental health institutions do not get adequate community care. Instead, they slip through the net, and a tour of people in London who nightly have to sleep near the central heating grilles of offices, alongside the Savoy hotel or in parks in north London reveals the tragic situation of many former in-patients of long-stay institutions. I am in favour of community care, but if it is not properly funded, we shall continue to have the disastrous situation that now exists.
With the possible advance of the closure of Friern hospital, a degree of panic is setting in. Insufficient alternative accommodation will be available if the closure is brought forward two years, the latest proposal to come from the regional health authority. May we be assured that such a speedy closure of Friern will not go ahead without the provision of adequate, full-time, permanent accommodation for those who will be discharged when the hospital finally closes? My second substantive point is the problem of the funding of Islington health authority. The annual report of Islington community health council stated:
In October last year the health authority agreed cuts in services of 65 beds, and 16 per cent. reductions in operating theatre out-patient sessions.

In November, the health authority announced delays in funding a number of big capital schemes, including Whittington's diagnostic block. The report continued:
Waiting times for admissions and out-patients' appointments grew. Many patients had appointments postponed, and sometimes postponed again,
as a result of those decisions. The quality of care received by patients has deteriorated and there are worries that patients are being pushed out of hospitals far too quickly.
As part of the proposals to save money, the authority's search for solutions includes centralising services on the Whittington site, removing all remaining acute beds from the royal northern hospital, a historic hospital just down the road, the accident and emergency department of which was closed some time ago despite the hospital being the borough's war memorial. The more efficient use of out-patient departments has meant that pressure on the hospital has become worse. Last October the number of beds was reduced by a further 60 on top of the considerable cuts that had already taken place.
Doreen Scott, a fine woman who suffers from severe disability and is wheelchair bound, is the chair of Islington community health council. She has done enormous work throughout the borough for many years and, as a patient of the Whittington hospital, she conducted a survey on the effect of those cuts. It stated:
the food was poor—often not hot enough and often not what I ordered…maintenance of the ward was poor—light bulbs were not replaced and the payphone not emptied.
When she was in hospital she witnessed the problems of transferring patients between wards because of the lack of staff. One patient had to go for a test in the diagnostic block across Highgate hill wearing his pyjamas because there was no ambulance available to fetch him. She witnessed a number of elderly patients being discharged who appeared to be still in need of hospital care. She is experienced in such matters.
The long-term problems are that over the decade the health authority has been told to make cuts of about 15 per cent. in real terms and 11 per cent. real terms expenditure has been cut from the Islington health authority since 1983. Dr. John Yudkin, a respected doctor dealing with diabetes at the Whittington hospital, who is well known to many people, presented a fact sheet, which was never denied, to members of the authority and the public last November. It stated that, despite the money granted to Friern hospital and the underfunding of the pay awards, during the past six years there has been a continuous cut in funding. Efficiency savings meant that the increase in expenditure had to be met by a reduction of expenditure in the district. On top of that, the district has had to contribute to the pool expenditure of the Lawson cuts and the regional growth pool. He also explained the problems that he and many others suffer as a result of the severe cuts in the expenditure of Islington health authority. There has been a 34 per cent. bed loss in the past six years. The Whittington hospital is now down to a mere 600 beds. At its height it was a large hospital of 1,500 beds.
At its meeting in October, the district health authority received a list showing the closure of one ward at the royal northern hospital, the closure of further wards at the Whittington hospital, restriction to five-day usage, agency and recruitment costs and the reduction in operating theatre lists. That last item saved £160,000, and the total list added up to savings of £1 million. That saving has resulted in a considerable deterioration of the health care


available to the people of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
The health authority's more recent meeting on 6 March 1990 listed proposals for service reductions totalling £980,000 and analysed how the problems had come about. It stated:
The major problem for Health Authorities with this allocation is that the provision for inflation has only been included at 5 per cent. This is unlikely to be sufficient to meet either pay or price inflation. Pay awards for public sector employees are likely to be settled with a 7.5 per cent. increase being the minimum expectation with price inflation are also running at 7 per cent.
Ludicrous demands are placed on area and regional health authorities, which mean that they cannot meet the targets and needs of patients within the community that they are there to serve.
By contrast, Hornsey central hospital, which is also in the district, demanded £1 million for refurbishment for one part, which was at first refused, and has now been phased over two years with £250,000 being paid in the current year, and £750,000 next year. In the same year that refurbishment of Hornsey central hospital was refused by the regional health authority, about £1 million was spent on the refurbishment of the regional health authority offices: these are serious matters indeed.
A merger has been proposed for Bloomsbury health authority, with part to go to Parkside, but the majority to Islington. There has been strong opposition to the merger for a number of reasons. First, it prevents Camden from having a coterminus health authority and makes coterminosity with Islington much worse—it is already not coterminus and will become even less so. In addition, Bloomsbury health authority is notoriously underfunded. A public consultation document on the merger received 60 responses, which is a large number for such a process. It is arcane to ask somebody to comment on the boundary changes of a health authority; nevertheless there were 60 responses, and only three supported the idea. Two responses were qualified and 55 had serious reservations.
I did not send in an objection or a view on the document because I associated myself with the response put forward by Islington Health Watch, as I chaired the meetings that drew up the response.
In the objections it was claimed that:
The consultation period is unreasonably short …while it is claimed that the plans will improve liaison between Westminster Council and the Health Authority, the same argument has been totally ignored for Islington and Camden…Creation of a Camden Health Authority (by merging Bloomsbury and Hampstead Authorities) needs looking into …The merger of Islington and Bloomsbury Health Authorities will probably be followed by merging Hampstead Health Authority with them. Thus causing a second upheaval
on top of goodness knows how many upheavals in health service reorganisation in the past 15 to 20 years.
I hope that those objections will be taken seriously by the Minister.
My union—the National Union of Public Employees—and the Confederation of Health Service Employees and other unions have shown their objection to the proposal. They are concerned about the problems that will result in the development of community services, mental health

services, education and management arrangements. It is interesting that the City of Westminster also sent in an objection which says:
The issue of coterminostity between health and social services authorities remains important, particularly in view of the legislative proposals in the NHS and Community Care Bill currently before Parliament, for this was the primary justification for the proposed transfer of north-east Westminster to Parkside.
I have had discussions with many people associated with health work in Islington and Camden in preparation for this short debate. They are all concerned about funding, about the closure of Friern, and about the need to develop facilities which will meet the needs of the people of our borough. They are in a difficult position. The Bloomsbury merger has been mooted for some time and there has been some consultation on it. A large number of objections have been sent in.
Will the Minister tell us that the Bloomsbury merger is not going ahead? He and his colleagues have had letters from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, with which I wish to be associated, asking that it should not.
Will the Minister instead announce that it is his intention to retain the objective of coterminosity between health authorities and local authorities. It will be difficult to achieve a good standard of co-operation, as has developed between Islington health authority and the London borough of Islington, if one has to deal with two or even three boroughs, which is what will happen.
Also, the Government and Ministers should study the allocation of resources regionally within the health authority. Islington comes within the area of North-East Thames regional health authority, and that area extends from very poor areas of inner London, which need the resource allocation working party formula because they have continuously lost resources over the past decade, all the way to Southend. They are diferent areas with different problems. The authority provides an expensive service. If there is to be health service reorganisation, it would be better to set up a London health planning agency which could direct resources as they are required to health authorities within London. At least that authority would be based on London boundaries rather than on the curious boundaries of the four Thames regional health authorities.
I had discussions this morning with the chairman of Islington health authority, Mr. Moonman, who emphasised the good relationship that had developed with Islington health authority and the need for the Minister to say clearly that the merger will not go ahead and that a new authority will be appointed. I am worried about the lack of democracy in running the health service. There should be rapidly appointed a health authority which reflects the needs and aspirations of Islington's people. We do not need one whose members are drawn solely from the business community, and that seems to be the formula that is developing. We need an authority that represents the borough council, local community and trade union interests and local business people who have a contribution to make. That would genuinely reflect the needs of the borough as a whole. Anything other than that is a receipe for long-term disaster.
Islington requires a recognition of its health needs and support for the good health initiatives that have been taken. Above all, it needs resources. We cannot go on year after year with one ward closure and one bed closure after another in order to meet some ridiculous target set by the


Minister for the regional health authority. We need the resources to meet the health needs of the people that I represent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has raised a wide range of issues and I have little time in which to respond. I do not think that I can reply to all the questions that he posed, but I shall cover as many as possible.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a call by public health officials for fixing, among other things, targets for the provision of health facilities for ethnic minorities and asked for an improved inter-disciplinary approach to health management. He mentioned a number of other desirable objectives, and I do not disagree with any of them. In terms of those objectives, the hon. Gentleman should be rather more open-minded than some of his hon. Friends to our reforms in the management of the health service. The fixing of health targets, especially for ethnic minorities, is one of the positive results that I expect to flow from the introduction of the purchaser-provider split which is at the core of those reforms. The hon. Gentleman does not have to accept my word for that positive result of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. He can consult Mr. Chris Ham, who writes for a magazine which I suspect the hon. Gentleman reads more frequently than I do, Marxism Today.

Mr. Corbyn: I do not read it at all.

Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read it; he could learn how the management of the health service could be improved using the principles contained in our Act. Mr. Ham, who is certainly not a Government supporter, argues that for people who share the hon. Gentleman's political point of view the ideas in the Act present an opportunity—precisely the opportunity that they are intended to present—for health service managers to think specifically about the health needs of people resident in their areas, and then to set out to ensure that those health needs are met.
The Government not only embrace the objective set by the hon. Gentleman but have provided the management framework to turn that objective into reality. Part of the purpose of the health service reforms is that the new health authorities, as prudent purchasers on behalf of their resident populations, should be thinking in a way that has not been necessary in the context of traditonal health service structures. They should think in an ordered manner about the precise health needs of their resident populations and use the budget provided by the national health service to ensure that those priorities are met. The health authority is charged with producing a properly prioritised budget to purchase health care that meets the specific needs of its resident population.
I embrace most of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The Government seek to do exactly what he urged. That is why we are reforming the structure of health service management to ensure that objectives are more accurately met than was possible in the past.
The hon. Gentleman went on to mention three specific matters that have arisen in his constituency. I shall deal with each of them briefly. The first is Friern hospital. He said that it was part of the Government's programme to

run down large mental hospitals as part of their community care programme. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I am the Minister with responsibility for mental illness issues. It is not our policy to run down large mental hospitals. Our policy is to provide mental care that is more accurately targeted to meet the clinical needs of each patient.
Most people in the mental illness world, although not all, recognise that in the past too many patients were put in unsuitable, large-scale hospitals where their clinical needs were not met. It is not our policy to close all mental hospitals. It is our policy to ensure that patients who can most benefit from treatment in the community should have the opportunity to receive it and that those who need more structured support should have that support. The facilities should be available to ensure that the clinical needs of each patient are met.
The context of Friern hospital is interesting. The hon. Gentleman expressed anxiety about patients being discharged without proper support and without a proper treatment programme. That anxiety is precisely the reason why my Department is helping to fund the TAPS—team for the assessment of psychiatric services—programme of research into what happens to patients who are discharged from Friern. We want to be sure that our widely accepted objective of providing more accurately targeted clinical care to individual mental patients is met.
We have set up a research organisation that will act as an informal policeman to ensure that precisely the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman about patients being discharged from Friern hospital will be examined. We shall find out whether the hon. Gentleman's fears are soundly based. I hope that they are not. We shall do what we can to ensure that they are not. I can give him some comfort by pointing out that the personal social services research unit conducted a research programme into those fears in 28 local schemes. It found that no patient in any of the 28 schemes ended up as the hon. Gentleman described, either on the streets or in prison.
The Government's policy is to ensure that mental patients are treated properly according to their clinical needs. That policy will continue and it will not be changed.
The hon. Gentleman spoke next about what he described as the underfunding of Islington health authority. He alleged that there had been substantial real terms cuts in Islington's health spending. I am glad to assure the House that that is not the case. Between 1982 and 1988–89 real-term spending by Islington health authority rose by 9.5 per cent. The initial cash allocation for this year is up by 9 per cent. on last year.
I prefer to judge the effectiveness of health care in a district by the effect on patients rather than the amount of money spent. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the number of in-patients treated in Islington health authority has risen at an average rate of 1.5 per cent. a year since 1982 and the average number of day cases has risen at an average rate of 6 per cent.
I do not accept that there have been real cuts in the level of health care provided by Islington health authority. I accept, however, that there have been changes in the way in which that health care has been provided. I do not apologise for that, because it is important for any manager in the health service not to insist on managing a service


that is set in aspic. All services should be responsive to the latest opportunities to improve the effectiveness with which health care is delivered.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman talked about the proposals on which we have gone out to consultation to change health authority boundaries in the area of London which he represents in part. No decision has yet been taken. We are still considering carefully the 60 responses to the consultative document. My officials have had the advantage, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not, of reading all the responses. I am glad to assure him that his presentation of the balance between support, neutrality and opposition is not that which is perceived by my officials who have read the representations.
The hon. Gentleman laid some stress on the coterminosity argument. I understand the concept of

bureaucratic neatness, which has some appeal, but those who consider management structure issues within the health service have to approach them more seriously than merely examining lines drawn on a map and then saying "Wouldn't it be nice and neat if all the lines could be drawn down the same streets or the same rivers." There are important issues to be considered and I do not regard coterminosity as an especially important one in terms of the planning of health care in any locality, including that which the hon. Gentleman represents.
The hon. Gentleman laid some stress also on the principle that there should be local representation on district health authorities. That misunderstands the nature of a DHA and its purpose. I would—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Three o'clock.